Donald Trump

Butters1979

ligerdub wrote: »

There are two other choices of course.

It's the same as not voting. There's a difference between choice to vote for and opportunity to win.

_oveless_

Only bigoted racists and misogynists would say the Trump and his anti-interventionist stance is great for the rest of the world, he wants to make better relations with russia he is literally hitler you should not make peace with enemies Hilary will bring Russia and Iran to heel she is clearly the better choice for president. Also, dont forget Trump wants to make it difficult to enter the united states illegally that is no different from the holocaust he needs to be stopped at all cost hopefully someone shoots him at tonights debate.

Mod: Banned.

osarusan

_oveless_ wrote: »

Only bigoted racists and misogynists would say the Trump and his anti-interventionist stance is great for the rest of the world, he wants to make better relations with russia he is literally hitler you should not make peace with enemies Hilary will bring Russia and Iran to heel she is clearly the better choice for president. Also, dont forget Trump wants to make it difficult to enter the united states illegally that is no different from the holocaust he needs to be stopped at all cost hopefully someone shoots him at tonights debate.

Did you have a bowl of hyperbole for breakfast?

A Little Pony

Samaris wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is the Establishment v The Outsider. Make sure the anti Hillary and establishment message comes across. Policy in detail is secondary.

It really doesn't bother you that policy should be -secondary- in a presidential election debate, falling behind..well, just being a loud arse? It's the president they're going for, not head loudspeaker. I certainly wouldn't be too impressed at a job interview that had nothing to do with experience or ability, just decided on who yells the most, irrespective of it making sense.

I hate Hillary, so not really. The establishments pawn is going to lose.

ligerdub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

2-300 million is a little more than reasonable. How much bigger of a capital sum though, once you take away his massive liabilities?

Most make an estimate significantly less than that, unless you are adjusting for inflation there. Again I suspect this is another exercising at knit picking at the man's business (not aimed at you to be fair).

I just don't understand why this issue even crops up by opponents of Donald. I mean if he's such a bigot and despicable character as some people claim then why not focus exclusively on that. Questioning this aspect of his life has the knock on effect of sullying other arguments against him.

I digress. I'll use another example to illustrate why critics of his wealth are out of bounds. Consider somebody who wins a huge sum of money on the Euromillions for example, does that translate into generational wealth or billionaire lifestyle many years later? I suggest not. There is a choice to work with that money or metaphorically spend your money on sweets, most choose the latter I imagine, and to be fair it's the choice I'd make too!

Samaris

A Little Pony wrote: »

I hate Hillary, so not really. The establishments pawn is going to lose.

I hope for everyone's sake that you're in a small minority on that way of looking at it!

DEFTLEFTHAND

_oveless_ wrote: »

Only bigoted racists and misogynists would say the Trump and his anti-interventionist stance is great for the rest of the world, he wants to make better relations with russia he is literally hitler you should not make peace with enemies Hilary will bring Russia and Iran to heel she is clearly the better choice for president. Also, dont forget Trump wants to make it difficult to enter the united states illegally that is no different from the holocaust he needs to be stopped at all cost hopefully someone shoots him at tonights debate.

You can't honestly stand over this.

Parachutes

_oveless_ wrote: »

Only bigoted racists and misogynists would say the Trump and his anti-interventionist stance is great for the rest of the world, he wants to make better relations with russia he is literally hitler you should not make peace with enemies Hilary will bring Russia and Iran to heel she is clearly the better choice for president. Also, dont forget Trump wants to make it difficult to enter the united states illegally that is no different from the holocaust he needs to be stopped at all cost hopefully someone shoots him at tonights debate.

This can't be a serious post.

ohnonotgmail

ligerdub wrote: »

Most make an estimate significantly less than that, unless you are adjusting for inflation there. Again I suspect this is another exercising at knit picking at the man's business (not aimed at you to be fair).

I just don't understand why this issue even crops up by opponents of Donald. I mean if he's such a bigot and despicable character as some people claim then why not focus exclusively on that. Questioning this aspect of his life has the knock on effect of sullying other arguments against him.

I digress. I'll use another example to illustrate why critics of his wealth are out of bounds. Consider somebody who wins a huge sum of money on the Euromillions for example, does that translate into generational wealth or billionaire lifestyle many years later? I suggest not. There is a choice to work with that money or metaphorically spend your money on sweets, most choose the latter I imagine, and to be fair it's the choice I'd make too!

i dont think anybody is focusing exclusively on that. it is an important aspect of his personality though. the man is a braggart and untrustworthy. he claims to be a billionaire yet has a string of failed businesses and bankruptcies behind him, including one business that was an outright scam. Nobody is criticising his wealth. they are questioning if it even exists.

Samaris

Parachutes wrote: »

This can't be a serious post.

I'm assuming not. I'm as far from a Trump supporter as you can get, and there's so much wrong with that post that it's not even worth getting into! :pac:

ligerdub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think anybody is focusing exclusively on that. it is an important aspect of his personality though. the man is a braggart and untrustworthy. he claims to be a billionaire yet has a string of failed businesses and bankruptcies behind him, including one business that was an outright scam. Nobody is criticising his wealth. they are questioning if it even exists.

I understand your point but I think it's a cul de sac for you to follow this line of thought. The vast majority will dismiss it as clutching at straws, after all any entrepreneur worth his salt will try and fail quite a lot, and in fact will likely fail more often than they'll succeed.

Let us compare DJT to one Richard Branson, a media darling, a man who decides to live in a tropical island to avoid tax (plus I assume a nice life). He has endured many failures, Cola, Vodka, social media companies, even his great success, the music stores became outdated long before he decided to shut them down. Is he a bad businessman? No? Is Donald Trump a bad businessman because he had a few bad years? No! Both of these guys are great businessmen who have both endured bad years and dreadful businesses, but they got out and retained the ability to recover those losses.

I'd also like to point out that Trump bankruptcies have been misadvertised as being personal, they were not. It's fairly obvious I like Trump the man, and I hope he wins the election, but I'd also say he's not perfect and thee are a few things which I couldn't standover, but an individual has many facets to their being, and I prefer Donald's to Hillary's. In any event it's irrelevant, as I don't have a vote anyway :-)

I'm just saying that people don't need to fear the horn-headed monster Donald has been portrayed as, should he become President of the U.S.

B_Wayne

This is still ignoring the fact that there's a big red flag over if he's half as wealthy as he claims. Otherwise there's another reason for him refusing to release his tax returns. So either he's maintaining his constant lying or he's hiding something more questionable in his tax returns.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

I've heard this one before and I disagree with it for several reasons.

1. Is timing. We've seen a massive market rally built out of thin air for the last 7 years. If you complete the same appraisal of Trump v markets back in 2009 my guess is that Trump would be the victor of that battle. I suspect he may yet return towards parity at some stage. It's funny how people are so keen to look clever with this one when it can be spun to be unfavourable on Trump.

Afraid not. Trump was claiming bankruptcy back in 2009.

2. The fairness of that comparison. The average investor can't beat the S&P500, in fact the vast majority don't. A much fairer comparison would be to bulk in a diversified portfolio of assets and track that performance. He also has associated running costs of running his lifestyle, are we not to take that into consideration?

So, he's average or below average. Not exactly a great endorsement, now is it? And it's not as if he fell a little short either, he fell way, way short by any estimation but his own. If you want to try the other angle, have at it.

3. I never argued that he could have done better. I merely said he is richer in real terms than when he inherited it, considerably so, which he is.

Among the other flaws in this argument already pointed out is that you nor I have any idea if his wealth is $4bn or $150mn. He tried to sue someone for claiming around the latter amount (may have been $250mn, can't fully remember) and lost.

4. "An author said he's only worth a couple of hundred million"....oh well that's that settled then, if "an author" said it...**** sake, brilliant argument that! I'll defer an estimate on this to Forbes magazine, and common sense, that he's worth in the region of $4.5 billion. I mean there are a few sticks to beat him with, calling him out on not being massively wealthy due to commercial activity is not one of them.

He tried to sue that same author because his narcissistic thin skin couldn't take it... and he lost. That says a lot, whether you like that fact or not.

Here's an article on Forbes saying his $4.5bn claims are exaggerated - http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/03/31/how-donald-trump-exaggerates-and-fibs-about-his-4-5-billion-net-worth/#328d0179787e

Bloomberg also says $2.9bn, because nobody knows exactly. Because Trump doesn't want people to know. Not for privacy reasons - he loves to brag and claim it is $10bn (ha!) - but for some reason will go significant lengths to ensure nobody finds out the exact number.

Trump is an unbelievably good salesperson (hence in part why his biggest supporters agreeing 100% with him when he says one thing, and agreeing 100% with him when he says the opposite) and he knows how to market, but a great businessperson overall he does not seem to be. Otherwise he'd at least be able to come close do achieving the same results with his inheritance as if he did pretty much nothing at all with it.

It's clearly the most obvious reason he would not want to release his tax returns to the point of outright lying about not being able to, and tucking his tail between his legs like a coward when Warren Buffet called him out on it. If he were that rich, he also wouldn't need to indebt himself to both Russians and Saudis in order to keep his business interests afloat.

You finish with the comments about child rape and donations to paedophile rings. I mean I'm not going to dispute this out of hand, but I suspect that's not true. You're coming off as somebody who just has a serious spite about this guy and you're seeking to validate the harshest voices on Trump from the most random sources as you can find. It's just not a credible argument.

Nah, I'm just pointing out the allegations that he refuses to deny. There's nothing wrong with it either, I'm just "telling it like it is". If he is so desperate for nobody to see his tax returns (first person in presidential history to refuse to do so, if I recall) and it is not for being worth far, far less than he claims (a classic trait of narcissism) or being a serious tax cheat, then this potential reason comes into play.

It's not as if he has never been in court for rape before, and notorious paedophile Jeremy Epstein was known to 'recruit' from some of Trump's businesses, with the two being on good terms - in fact, this is what Trump has had to say about him "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy, he's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Now it most likely is not the case that he has been making those donations... but if money isn't the reason, then why do you think he is so afraid of people seeing his tax returns that he would lie about not being able to and (in complete contrast to his usual self) remain very, very quiet on the matter when challenged on it by Buffet?

Ilovemybricks

Billy86 wrote: »

An out of touch, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, racist billionaire of an old man who only got rich because he inherited daddy's fortune?

He's a racist billionaire. Ok.

Billy86 wrote:

And that's only going what he (a documented habitual liar) claims his fortune is. An author wrote a book that indicated his true value is only as few hundred million as opposed to a few billion, to which the infamously thin skinned Trump reacted by suing... and lost.

That and tax dodging are why he is so desperate for nobody to see his tax returns to the point of lying about why he won't release them. Well, either that or his alleged donations to paedophile rings which sound outlandish until you remember charges have been pressed against him for raping a child and threatening to murder them if they told. Something which the 'bias media' haven't really been reporting on, like they haven't been reporting much on his upcoming multiple trials for defrauding the American public of millions of dollars.

So you're saying he's not a billionaire. Which is it? Make up your mind.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

I understand your point but I think it's a cul de sac for you to follow this line of thought. The vast majority will dismiss it as clutching at straws, after all any entrepreneur worth his salt will try and fail quite a lot, and in fact will likely fail more often than they'll succeed.

Why, in your opinion, is Donald Trump - a man who claims to have billions and billions, and who is perhaps the world's most infamous exhibitionist in terms of flaunting his money and status - so afraid to release his tax returns that he has had to lie about 'not being able to' due to auditing?

And why is it one of the only issues he has kept quiet on since Buffet challenged him on it?

Billy86

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

He's a racist billionaire. Ok.



So you're saying he's not a billionaire. Which is it? Make up your mind.

I'm saying he claims to be a billionaire, but you, nor I, nor anyone knows if his value is $150mn or $4.5bn. I think my repeatedly stating that over and over again should have made it clear, no?

Why do you think he feels the need to lie about 'not being able' to release his tax returns, and is clearly afraid to do so?

ligerdub

I'm not going to attempt rational discourse with somebody peddling low brow stuff (and I'm sorry, but it is) like unsubstantiated paedophilia connections and rape by this man. You make some points which I find to be at least in the spectrum of fair, but then clearly go off the reserve in criticism.

As I said previously, I can see you're finding the examples and sources which go to the nth degree of the evil Donald narrative. I'm not going to counter that as it's outside reasonable boundaries.

I will respond to one point, you're Forbes story that he's lying. I take my estimates of his wealth myself from them.....and they say $4.5 billion. You can't have it both ways.

B_Wayne

ligerdub wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt rational discourse with somebody peddling low brow stuff (and I'm sorry, but it is) like unsubstantiated paedophilia connections and rape by this man. You make some points which I find to be at least in the spectrum of fair, but then clearly go off the reserve in criticism.

As I said previously, I can see you're finding the examples and sources which go to the nth degree of the evil Donald narrative. I'm not going to counter that as it's outside reasonable boundaries.

I will respond to one point, you're Forbes story that he's lying. I take my estimates of his wealth myself from them.....and they say $4.5 billion. You can't have it both ways.

What legitimate reason does one have for not releasing tax returns?

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt rational discourse with somebody peddling low brow stuff (and I'm sorry, but it is) like unsubstantiated paedophilia connections and rape by this man. You make some points which I find to be at least in the spectrum of fair, but then clearly go off the reserve in criticism.

As I said previously, I can see you're finding the examples and sources which go to the nth degree of the evil Donald narrative. I'm not going to counter that as it's outside reasonable boundaries.

I will respond to one point, you're Forbes story that he's lying. I take my estimates of his wealth myself from them.....and they say $4.5 billion. You can't have it both ways.

Ah yes, direct quotes from Donald Trump are now "sources which go to the nth degree of the evil Donald narrative". You may not like the child rape allegation, but it is very much real (as were his previous rape cases) - http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ .

Like I said, if you want to use Forbes' estimate (coincidentally, the highest independent estimate I could find) then fine -- and that's why I have linked you them calling him a liar about his own worth. The fact is though, that you, nor I, nor anyone at Forbes, nor the author he unsuccessfully tried to sue for claiming his wealth was less than 10% of that, know the exact number. Because Trump is afraid to release his taxes, and there's clearly a reason why. That you refuse to allow your brain to engage with the possible reasons does nothing to change that.

I can see you steadfastly refuse to answer why you think he is afraid of releasing his taxes to the point of lying about it, then (completely out of character for him) tucking his tail between his legs and keeping shush on the matter when Buffett called out this lie and challenged him on it. Maybe you're best off not responding in that case, because there appears to be a gap there that you're not comfortable engaging with.

ligerdub

Billy86 wrote: »

Why, in your opinion, is Donald Trump - a man who claims to have billions and billions, and who is perhaps the world's most infamous exhibitionist in terms of flaunting his money and status - so afraid to release his tax returns that he has had to lie about 'not being able to' due to auditing?

And why is it one of the only issues he has kept quiet on since Buffet challenged him on it?

Take a stroll around New York City, particularly the areas of superprime areas for real estate......and count where you see the word "Trump".....and look at the size of those buildings (stick to the ones he owns). His NYC property portfolio would make an Arab oil sheik blush.

I don't know why he won't release those things, perhaps he doesn't pay any tax, perhaps it shows he gets ridiculous amounts of money from dodgy foreign deals, I dunno :-)

Won't that just show income anyway? There's no tax on wealth there. I don't see how his tax refunds will reveal what his wealth is, although for some reason people are using this to reveal him as some sort of Talented Mr Ripley fraudster.

Bear in mind I have consistently stayed with the argument of his level of wealth, and that's all I've argued.

ligerdub

On the point of him being a liar, in strict terms of that statement I'd agree. He is an exaggerator, which I suppose you could amount to the same thing, but in my opinion this is different to a Hillary level of lying (where you lie in absolutes rather than relatives). I'm keen to avoid a pissing contest on who is worse in that regard so I'll keep it simple, when Trump says he's worth 10 it probably means he's worth 5, which coincidentally is what most estimates put him at.

You're attempting to stick to this idea that he's a paedophile and/or rapist who is merely a multi-millionaire rather than a multi-billionaire. You may of course be right, but let's be honest about it, it's in the segment on the bell curve where Jim Corr and the other tinfoil hat types sit i.e. enough to have a reasonable commentator wince.

Now we've had our say, it's clear we're both biased......especially you ;-) I jest. Godspeed sir. I'm done on this, we've both stated our case and won't convince each other, all the best.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

Take a stroll around New York City, particularly the areas of superprime areas for real estate......and count where you see the word "Trump".....and look at the size of those buildings (stick to the ones he owns). His NYC property portfolio would make an Arab oil sheik blush.

I don't know why he won't release those things, perhaps he doesn't pay any tax, perhaps it shows he gets ridiculous amounts of money from dodgy foreign deals, I dunno :-)

Won't that just show income anyway? There's no tax on wealth there. I don't see how his tax refunds will reveal what his wealth is, although for some reason people are using this to reveal him as some sort of Talented Mr Ripley fraudster.

Bear in mind I have consistently stayed with the argument of his level of wealth, and that's all I've argued.

You are aware that he doesn't own many of those properties, by the way? These include Trump Parc, Trump Parc East, Trump Park Avenue, Trump Soho, Trump Palace, and the well known Trump World Tower.

He pimps his name out to some things and if I recall correctly has had to sell the rights to many others, because of cash flow issues. Of course that also backs up the fact that he is a very, very effective marketer and excellent salesperson... but it doesn't make him the owner of those buildings. It's also often been done in very shady manners that have led to (even more) lawsuits against him. Because while an excellent salesperson, he is certainly more of the snake oil variety.

skywanderer

There will be some amount of butt hurt liberal SJWs here when Trump gets the White House in a few weeks time.

B_Wayne

skywanderer wrote: »

There will be some amount of butt hurt liberal SJWs here when Trump gets the White House in a few weeks time.

You're insightful...

Samaris

ligerdub wrote: »

On the point of him being a liar, in strict terms of that statement I'd agree. He is an exaggerator, which I suppose you could amount to the same thing, but in my opinion this is different to a Hillary level of lying (where you lie in absolutes rather than relatives). I'm keen to avoid a pissing contest on who is worse in that regard

Sorry, I know you want to avoid it, but there's really a bit of a difference there. Clinton's scandals - and they do exist - have all been repeatedly scrutinised by hearings and nothing has stuck. It's generally "well, you probably shouldn't do that, but yeah, other people have (the email server thing), you've just spoiled it for anyone else looking for an easy solution by letting it become a Thing." It wasn't Thing for Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or...okay, it was a Thing for George Bush, because again, he got caught doing it.

The Clinton bodycount is so riddled with ridiculousness (they apparently assassinate people vaguely associated with someone they met quite often. That's barely assassination, that's just serially killing now.)

The Clinton Foundation thing was again morally questionable but absolutely not illegal for the section about who the money was from, and completely irrelevant so far as the Ukraine sale connection goes, since a) Hillary Clinton herself wasn't involved in the decision and b) nine other federal offices were, and presumably they're not being accused of being bought.

Trumps scandals are the opposite. They are so constant and so bombarding that the media doesn't even get to investigate them all because attention has moved onto his next idiocy. And then he lies so outrageously blatantly that people just don't think anyone could be that downright brazen. Buying personal items (that it's included portraits (in the plural) is just getting into Bond supervillian territory) with -charity money- is just ..yeah, cartoon supervillian. Running companies into the ground, the debacle of shady **** that was Trump University, the buying out of casino chips to raise the capital of what was essentially a tax-free loan to Trump from his father, the birther nonsense, the Muslim!Birther nonsense, the raft of statements he's made that would be slanderous if they weren't so mindblowingly obviously wrong, the tax return thing is one of those "could easily be innocent but your bloody-mindedness about it is enough to end a career because even your own mother would think you were hiding something by now" things. His public commendations of Putin, Kim Jong Un et al -eh, I don't actually have much issue with what he said, but it would definitely count as a scandal. And that's before we touch on the little things caused by...every time he opens his mouth.

The problem is that it is actually just mad to try claim that Clinton and Trump's ethical failings are on anything like the same level. This should honestly be something that everyone could get behind, because the facts are all out there.

Clinton isn't a chocolate cake covered in unicorns by any means. She's a hard-headed politician who will, regardless of what she tries to do, good or bad, be facing constant roadblocking, dislike and distrust and at this point, it doesn't actually matter whether it's deserved or not, her presidency actually cannot succeed at this point unless the entire world has a collective lobotomy. And honestly, American presidencies succeeding is usually better for the rest of us than their failing. America sneezes and Europe catches HIV. So at best, she's not a great choice.

Trump, on the other hand, is absolutely a cake of lye seeded with razor blades. Experience, temperament, policy knowledge and ability are just non-existent, and that would be bad enough if he wasn't -also- a malicious, narcissistic buffoon.

ligerdub

Samaris wrote: »

Sorry, I know you want to avoid it, but there's really a bit of a difference there. Clinton's scandals - and they do exist - have all been repeatedly scrutinised by hearings and nothing has stuck. It's generally "well, you probably shouldn't do that, but yeah, other people have (the email server thing), you've just spoiled it for anyone else looking for an easy solution by letting it become a Thing." It wasn't Thing for Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or...okay, it was a Thing for George Bush, because again, he got caught doing it.

The Clinton bodycount is so riddled with ridiculousness (they apparently assassinate people vaguely associated with someone they met quite often. That's barely assassination, that's just serially killing now.)

The Clinton Foundation thing was again morally questionable but absolutely not illegal for the section about who the money was from, and completely irrelevant so far as the Ukraine sale connection goes, since a) Hillary Clinton herself wasn't involved in the decision and b) nine other federal offices were, and presumably they're not being accused of being bought.

Trumps scandals are the opposite. They are so constant and so bombarding that the media doesn't even get to investigate them all because attention has moved onto his next idiocy. And then he lies so outrageously blatantly that people just don't think anyone could be that downright brazen. Buying personal items (that it's included portraits (in the plural) is just getting into Bond supervillian territory) with -charity money- is just ..yeah, cartoon supervillian. Running companies into the ground, the debacle of shady **** that was Trump University, the buying out of casino chips to raise the capital of what was essentially a tax-free loan to Trump from his father, the birther nonsense, the Muslim!Birther nonsense, the raft of statements he's made that would be slanderous if they weren't so mindblowingly obviously wrong, the tax return thing is one of those "could easily be innocent but your bloody-mindedness about it is enough to end a career because even your own mother would think you were hiding something by now" things. His public commendations of Putin, Kim Jong Un et al -eh, I don't actually have much issue with what he said, but it would definitely count as a scandal. And that's before we touch on the little things caused by...every time he opens his mouth.

The problem is that it is actually just mad to try claim that Clinton and Trump's ethical failings are on anything like the same level. This should honestly be something that everyone could get behind, because the facts are all out there.

Clinton isn't a chocolate cake covered in unicorns by any means. She's a hard-headed politician who will, regardless of what she tries to do, good or bad, be facing constant roadblocking, dislike and distrust and at this point, it doesn't actually matter whether it's deserved or not, her presidency actually cannot succeed at this point unless the entire world has a collective lobotomy. And honestly, American presidencies succeeding is usually better for the rest of us than their failing. America sneezes and Europe catches HIV. So at best, she's not a great choice.

Trump, on the other hand, is absolutely a cake of lye seeded with razor blades. Experience, temperament, policy knowledge and ability are just non-existent, and that would be bad enough if he wasn't -also- a malicious, narcissistic buffoon.

I'm not to touch on the body count thing as I suspect it's in the same league as the Trump paedo accusations. The email server thing is a dreadfully naive mistake, and while I can't criticise her too much for making the error, her efforts at dealing with it were shambolic, and let's not forget she isn't entirely out of the woods on that score either. The Clinton foundation is a disgrace though, as is her use of Islamophobia baiting and feminism as a vote getter, despite herself doing sweetheart deals with possibly the most oppressive regime for women possible, as well as her helping hand in the destabilisation of the Middle East. Let's not forget that the birther movement was one that was also used by Hillary against Obama, in fact I understand it was her campaign that started it!

I don't see what the bid deal is with the Putin comments. Personally I think it would be nice to see better relations between the US and Russia. Under the "isn't he such a nice lad" Obama it's clear that relations between the 2 nations hasn't been as bad as this since the 80's. If Donald is willing to play ball then good enough IMO. The Russophobia has returned and everything Putin says is supposed to be considered dirt, but if you sit down and little to the man he makes a lot of sense. Again, Clinton using this as a negative is just shameless attempts to paint Donald as the bad guy.

How she handles errors and lies is the big problem for me. She uses every dirty playback in the book to deflect from valid questions about her, including the idea that her health was top notch, at a time when that was clearly untrue. She turned what should have been an easy opportunity to garner goodwill and sympathy only to turn it into a ridiculous face saving exercise. This is par for the course for her. It's a blatant lie, and she's always doing it. It's not the scandals so much as the lies, she is without a doubt a purebred liar. I think my favourite one is the one where she claimed she was named after the first man to climb Everest, despite the fact that she was about 5 at the time he did that! My guess is that she's hiding more, probably about her health. I found it curious that she allowed a child hug her when she supposedly had pneumonia, and went to her daughters apartment rather than a hospital. There's just so much about her that's duplicitous.

I don't disagree with the narcissism of Trump, it would be foolish to do so, but I'd argue that Hillary in her careerist, White House at all costs, pander to black people, "I was under a haze of gunfire in Bosnia","I like the gays now" BS shows her to be a complete sociopath. I'd argue she'd fare worse on the Hare test than Trump (Or at least she'd be high up on the scale).

The fact that she's so willing to embrace this grievance culture is just totally against everything I believe in, and it's not what I'd consider to be appropriate leadership.

I can't take your "hard headed woman" thing as a form of a criticism of Clinton. It's a thinly veiled compliment that she's a strong individual. The fact is she hasn't been effective in getting things over the line, and a part of her problem is her difficulty in working with people. She's just not suited to doing deals, it's not her background and it's part of why she has been a failure in the Obama team.

I think the thing that really swung it for me though was when she cackled about the murder of Gaddafi. That was about the least humane thing I've seen from a politician, not to mention the other occasions she has been caught on tape laughing at something completely heinous. If she gets into the White House and does something like that don't expect it to go under the carpet, there will be consequences.

I appreciate this is a "Trump" thread and not a Clinton one, so I don't wish for it to be hijacked with a "well Hillary is worse" stuff so I'll leave it there. I realise I've already kind of done that.

Bazzo

To be honest somebody painting Clinton as being more dishonest or a bigger "liar" than Trump is farcical. Every single fact-checking body there is declares Trump as being the vastly more dishonest of the two. The whole "hugged a child while she had pneumonia" bull**** is laughable too and shows at best ignorance of any sort of medical knowledge of the condition and at worst reaching to purposefully demonise a harmless gesture.

DEFTLEFTHAND

What time will the Debate begin tonight?

Kermit.de.frog

2 am

PTH2009

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What time will the Debate begin tonight?

2am