2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

I'm fairly satisfied that you don't know what the word neoconservative means from this post.

Can you provide evidence that Hillary Clinton does not believe "Arabs or other peoples" should be allowed govern themselves? This is a fairly broad statememt, it actually includes everyone.

I may sound like a dog with a bone, but I refuse to let these lies go unchallenged. Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.



This doesn't make Trump a pacifist.

Hillary has more than demonstrated her neoconservative credentials to date. On all foreign affairs she has sided with the Republicans to adopt a pro interventionist agenda even going back to her husband's presidency. Her willingness to back all war bills that came to Congress. The Arabs not being able to govern themselves was a core part of the neoconservative agenda. Right up there with deposing Latin American gvts that disagree with America's economic policies. Hillary if not her tactic support was part of the war team that encourages the removal of heads of state that are enemies of America yet have independent positions on a whole range of issues.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

What about her positions on the economy, education and the environment?

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative!

Neoconservatism is not uniform on any of those things. In fact it's a left wing heresy (the original neo conservatives were democratic supporters who then moved right on foreign policy — they were new to conservatism ). It's a policy determined solely by foreign policies, in particular in the Middle East . An isolationist right would be — and is — opposed by the neocons.

They are the party of war. The actual party or candidate they support depends on the sabre rattling of that party or candidate.

Igotadose

Trump names his White House Counsel (same role John Dean held back in the day):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/11/25/new-trump-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-is-a-partisan-politico-consiglieri/3/#6f9dae956778

From the above: “He’s one of a growing number of people with ties to the Kochs to join Trump’s administration.” and

"At the FEC, public interest groups and Democrats accused McGahn of steering the agency into an era of gridlock. McGahn led three Republicans, half the Commission, to block efforts by advocacy groups aiming to reduce the influence of money in politics. In fact, McGahn himself is credited as having played a crucial role in loosening regulation on campaign spending."

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Neoconservatism is not uniform on any of those things. In fact it's a left wing heresy (the original neo conservatives were democratic supporters who then moved right on foreign policy — they were new to conservatism ). It's a policy determined solely by foreign policies, in particular in the Middle East . An isolationist right would be — and is — opposed by the neocons.

They are the party of war. The actual party or candidate they support depends on the sabre rattling of that party or candidate.

The neocons who left he Democratic Party did so because they party was taking a turn left, away from conservativism and towards a more liberal strategy. They were not liberals. In the 1960s the Democrats were mainly a Conservative party.

Neoconservativism is not solely defined by foreign policy. But a range of policies including supply side economics and putting faith front and centre in government.

aloyisious

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752

It's probable there will be the needed numbers to do the work, until at least after the Wisconsin recount result comes in and they decide whether to go for recounts in the other two states. At least I imagine they'll count their chickens after hatching. Don't lose sight of the fact that Jill Stein is in the Green Party and they are the party that is asking for the recount.

Thank's for posting the link, saves me time looking for info on line about the recounts request/s.

PopePalpatine

Igotadose wrote: »

Trump names his White House Counsel (same role John Dean held back in the day):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/11/25/new-trump-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-is-a-partisan-politico-consiglieri/3/#6f9dae956778

From the above: “He’s one of a growing number of people with ties to the Kochs to join Trump’s administration.” and

"At the FEC, public interest groups and Democrats accused McGahn of steering the agency into an era of gridlock. McGahn led three Republicans, half the Commission, to block efforts by advocacy groups aiming to reduce the influence of money in politics. In fact, McGahn himself is credited as having played a crucial role in loosening regulation on campaign spending."

That swamp just got 10 feet deeper!

Igotadose

To me, this is by far the biggest fail in the last election season. Sheeple whining about policy and hawkishness, or being distracted by outrageous supporters of Trump doing outrageous things, ignored the absolutely frightening links to Russia. It is my belief that only a traitor would vote for Trump in light of this kind of information. Yet they did. Good luck, USA, you've got your Manchurian Candidate President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-keep-looking-away-from-the-elections-most-alarming-story/2016/11/25/83533d3e-b0e2-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.8029eb86620c&wpisrc=nl_az_most

Some tidbits:
"U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support President-elect Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. "

"Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, boasted that government representatives maintained multiple “contacts” during the campaign with Trump’s “immediate entourage.” (Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a denial.) This is on top of reported U.S. government suspicions that a Trump adviser met with the intelligence operative directing the hacking. Where are the committee chairmen in Congress demanding an investigation? How is it that Republican Party leaders accept the intervention of a foreign power in the election of their party’s presidential candidate?"

B0jangles

The Chief Ethics Counsels for GW Bush and Barack Obama are in agreement that Donald Trump would be in direct violation of the constitution the moment he takes office unless he sells his companies and puts the proceeds into a blind trust. They jointly argue that the Electoral College should reject him unless he undertakes to divest himself of his businesses.

Richard Painter, Chief Ethics Counsel for George W. Bush, and Norman Eisen, Chief Ethics Counsel for Barack Obama, believe that if Trump continues to retain ownership over his sprawling business interests by the time the electors meet on December 19, they should reject Trump.

In an email to ThinkProgress, Eisen explained that “the founders did not want any foreign payments to the president. Period.” This principle is enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

This provision was specifically created to prevent the President, most of all, from being corrupted by foreign influences...


...Eisen said that Trump’s businesses, foreign and domestic, “are receiving a stream of such payments.” A prime example is Trump’s new hotel in Washington DC which, according to Eisen, is “actively seeking emoluments to Trump: payments from foreign governments for use of the hotel.”

“The notion that his (through his agents) solicitation of those payments, and the foreign governments making of those payments, is unrelated to his office is laughable,” Eisen added.

This problem will be repeated “over and over” again with Trump’s other properties and business interests. The only way to cure this Constitutional violation is for Trump to sell his companies and set up a blind trust before he takes office.

Electors should insist that Trump set up a blind trust as a condition of their vote, Eisen said....

...Eisen views the current situation as dire. If Trump is permitted to be sworn in as president without selling his companies, he says, the country is facing a “wholesale oligarchic kleptocracy of a kind that we have never seen before in our history.”...

https://thinkprogress.org/electoral-college-trump-top-lawyers-8a8b6e0ca916#.px1rslla5

osmiumartist

Igotadose wrote: »

"Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, boasted that government representatives maintained multiple “contacts” during the campaign with Trump’s “immediate entourage.” (Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a denial.)

And? The guy was running for President of the USA. You think every country on earth wasn't talking to him? Same logic says that if any representative of any country met Clinton's people she was a "Manchurian Candidate" for them too and a big fat traitor, right?

First Up

osmiumartist wrote:

And? The guy was running for President of the USA. You think every country on earth wasn't talking to him? Same logic says that if any representative of any country met Clinton's people she was a "Manchurian Candidate" for them too and a big fat traitor, right?

Were the Russians talking to Clinton's people too?

osmiumartist

First Up wrote: »

Were the Russians talking to Clinton's people too?

Yes.

Igotadose

osmiumartist wrote: »

And? The guy was running for President of the USA. You think every country on earth wasn't talking to him? Same logic says that if any representative of any country met Clinton's people she was a "Manchurian Candidate" for them too and a big fat traitor, right?

Remember this story? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_trump_server_evaluating_new_evidence_and_countertheories.html

Seems like there was a server communicating with a bank that might've been used for mass e-mailing. Also denied by the Trump campaign. Seems like more than just simple 'talking.'

And, you skipped the bit about Russians hacking the DNC and providing info to Wikileaks. So tell me, what do you think might've been in Corey Lewandowski's e-mails? Paul Manaforts? Interesting the RNC wasn't hacked - were their security people better? I doubt it.

? The Russians meddle in US elections on Trump's behalf. He appears to have deep links with them (why have a specially configured e-mail server at all if it's harmless?) Now, he's President Elect. What do the Russians get from this? Trump as President. As a US Citizen, I want my Congress to investigate further. They've investigated all sorts of administrations for FAR less than this scary stuff.

I'd be glad to lay this to rest once the FBI investigates and finds no malfeasance. Or Congress.

RobertKK

So the Clinton campaign is taking part in efforts to push for recounts in several states, DESPITE her campaign saying their own investigations has not uncovered any evidence of hacking of voting machines.
So they are not accepting the result, as Hillary said of Trump when he indicated he might not accept the result...horrifying :P

FatherTed

RobertKK wrote: »

So the Clinton campaign is taking part in efforts to push for recounts in several states, DESPITE her campaign saying their own investigations has not uncovered any evidence of hacking of voting machines.
So they are not accepting the result, as Hillary said of Trump when he indicated he might not accept the result...horrifying :P

Trump said before the election that it was rigged and now he says boo so what's the difference?

Jan_de_Bakker

What can this recount accomplish ?
Can Clinton get back the presedency ?

osmiumartist

FatherTed wrote: »

Trump said before the election that it was rigged and now he says boo so what's the difference?

So your claim is that Clinton is the same as Trump... amazing how people pick a side and then insist they're the same isn't it?

Laois_Man

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

What can this recount accomplish ?
Can Clinton get back the presedency ?

Extremely extremely unlikely

osmiumartist

Igotadose wrote: »

And, you skipped the bit about Russians hacking the DNC and providing info to Wikileaks.

Skipped the thing that Wikileaks and Russia denied and Clinton and her entourage insist is true?
Gee, funny how I "skipped" that utter crock of twaddle isn't it?

osmiumartist

Igotadose wrote: »

As a US Citizen, I want my Congress to investigate further. They've investigated all sorts of administrations for FAR less than this scary stuff.

You mightn't have noticed, but Trump isn't part of the administration, yeah?
So you basically want the FBI to investigate every e-mail to and from any private individual you don't like. Good luck with that.

Igotadose

osmiumartist wrote: »

Skipped the thing that Wikileaks and Russia denied and Clinton and her entourage insist is true?
Gee, funny how I "skipped" that utter crock of twaddle isn't it?

Clinton's Entourage?

Not hard to find things like this:
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that they are confident that senior-level Russian officials were involved in the hacks. Spokespeople for the Russian government have denied any role."

There's an 'official announcement' out there to that effect from those two. Senior level functionaries in the US Government.

Even the FBI 'agreed' but wouldn't go so far as to publically denounce Russia.
(from the Chicago Tribune, quoting FBI chief Comey):
"
But he supported the administration's formal denunciation last month as long as it did not have the FBI's name on it, they said. Comey was sensitive not only to his agency appearing to influence the election but also to seeming biased while it was conducting an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions."

Still seems like worthy of US Congressional investigation, serious stuff and obviously quite a blatant attempt to manipulate the outcome of the US election on behalf of Trump.

Laois_Man

RobertKK wrote: »

So the Clinton campaign is taking part in efforts to push for recounts in several states, DESPITE her campaign saying their own investigations has not uncovered any evidence of hacking of voting machines.
So they are not accepting the result, as Hillary said of Trump when he indicated he might not accept the result...horrifying :P

Theyre not taking part in efforts to push for recounts. They're taking up their right to scrutinise the recounts. As they should do. And as the Trump campaign should do and undoubtedly will do also

osmiumartist

Igotadose wrote: »

Still seems like worthy of US Congressional investigation, serious stuff and obviously quite a blatant attempt to manipulate the outcome of the US election on behalf of Trump.

It's a whole heap of nothing. Let's face it, if there was anything other than an inept smear campaign behind it then Obama and Clinton could have just released any information they had on the hack. The entire sum of the evidence presented is "we said so". They had nothing. They still have nothing. The shovel has worn out so they can stop digging.

Hank Scorpio

What's this recount business about? He won Pennsylvania by 70k votes and Michigan supposedly doesn't even use electronic voting machines. Why aren't they recounting states that he lost by under 10K votes. This reeks and opens a big can of worms.

Igotadose

osmiumartist wrote: »

It's a whole heap of nothing. Let's face it, if there was anything other than an inept smear campaign behind it then Obama and Clinton could have just released any information they had on the hack. The entire sum of the evidence presented is "we said so". They had nothing. They still have nothing. The shovel has worn out so they can stop digging.

The likes of us haven't seen the information - but the statements by the head of Homeland Security and Intelligence and the FBI sure seem to indicate there IS evidence that's quite damning. I think portraying this as a smear campaign is disingenuous - there's real data the spooks have, just a matter of time before they can find out more.

I agree with you the Russian minister saying, "of course we're in contact with Trump" and the business with the bank server are damning, but not 'smoking gun.' Smoking guns take awhile to appear. Heck, Congressman Trey Gowdey's still looking for one with Benghazi after however many thousand hours of testimony and millions spent 'investigating.'

Really, this is well beyond what Congress typically needs to start an investigation. At least 1 congressman's got a petition out there for the head of the Oversight committee to investigate (though, he's a Utah Republican who did not endorse trump, Congressman Chaffetz might do the right thing and start investigating.)

Also, that tax return thing - might help clear up if there's any suspicions about Trump and Russia, too...

Igotadose

osmiumartist wrote: »

You mightn't have noticed, but Trump isn't part of the administration, yeah?
So you basically want the FBI to investigate every e-mail to and from any private individual you don't like. Good luck with that.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from; lets stick to the facts at hand:
rump was the Republican nominee for President and there's questions about foreign governments intervening on his behalf; as you recall Trump solicited foreign donations at one point during his campaign, later walking it back as a mistake, so he's shown signs of ineptitude at least once, or his crack staff didn't get it. His 2d campaign manager had deep ties with Russia and that did lead to his being replaced after just a brief time on the job.

So... a campaign staff that didn't quite get the thing about asking for help from foreigners...a campaign manager that had deep ties with the Russian government over many years... a bank server used to exchange 'something' between Trump's campaign and a Russian bank...and finally, evidence confirmed by high level intelligence officials that the DNC was hacked by Russian agents with approval from the highest levels of the Russian government.

Let me ask you this - what proof would YOU need if the roles were reversed? If the RNC were hacked by the Russians and a bank server found to communicate from the Clinton campaign to Russia, and the FBI et al confirmed that there was nefarious activity by the Russians on the behalf of the Clinton campaign, still think its all twaddle and 'nothing to see here, lets move on?'

Hank Scorpio

Igotadose wrote: »

Let me ask you this - what proof would YOU need if the roles were reversed? If the RNC were hacked by the Russians and a bank server found to communicate from the Clinton campaign to Russia, and the FBI et al confirmed that there was nefarious activity by the Russians on the behalf of the Clinton campaign, still think its all twaddle and 'nothing to see here, lets move on?'

Is there any proof of this? Excuse my ignorance.

osmiumartist

Igotadose wrote: »

Let me ask you this - what proof would YOU need if the roles were reversed?

Any proof whatsoever besides "we said so"?

RobertKK

FatherTed wrote: »

Trump said before the election that it was rigged and now he says boo so what's the difference?

The hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton on Trump saying he would keep people in suspense if he would accept the election result:
“It was horrifying what he said,”

“we are a country based on laws. And we’ve had hot, contested elections going back to the very beginning, but one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our elections.”

America has free and fair elections,”

“Somebody wins and somebody loses. So what he said tonight is part of his whole effort to blame somebody else for his campaign.”




So the Clinton campaign say they found no evidence of voting machines being hacked in their investigations.
They are just contesting it because they don't want to accept the result.
I guess she is doing everything she accused Trump of.
But her supporters will not want to say that, it will be double standards.

RobertKK

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What's this recount business about? He won Pennsylvania by 70k votes and Michigan supposedly doesn't even use electronic voting machines. Why aren't they recounting states that he lost by under 10K votes. This reeks and opens a big can of worms.

It is horrifying, and to think Hillary won a rigged DNC contest...horrifying...

Hank Scorpio

RobertKK wrote: »

It is horrifying, and to think Hillary won a rigged DNC contest...horrifying...

If they manage to rig it somehow Civil war will happen, maybe that's what Mr Soros wants.

Billy86

Igotadose wrote: »

as you recall Trump solicited foreign donations at one point during his campaign,

Not once, more like three times to people in five different countries, minimum. There was Scotland, Canada, Australia, Iceland and possibly others which broke in June. Then Australia again in August, and then China in October. And this is before looking at all the dodgy links to Russia, as you mentioned.

Rainman16

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

What can this recount accomplish ?
Can Clinton get back the presedency ?

If it's found that she has more votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Then Yes! She would be President. I think the Clinton campaign has paid off Jill Stein to make this challenge. Stein has probably been guaranteed a few million and a senior position in the Clinton administration if they can turn this around

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

It is horrifying, and to think Hillary won a rigged DNC contest...horrifying...

Is it Stein or Clinton calling for a recount ?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

The hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton on Trump saying he would keep people in suspense if he would accept the election result:
“It was horrifying what he said,”

“we are a country based on laws. And we’ve had hot, contested elections going back to the very beginning, but one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our elections.”

America has free and fair elections,”

“Somebody wins and somebody loses. So what he said tonight is part of his whole effort to blame somebody else for his campaign.”




So the Clinton campaign say they found no evidence of voting machines being hacked in their investigations.
They are just contesting it because they don't want to accept the result.
I guess she is doing everything she accused Trump of.
But her supporters will not want to say that, it will be double standards.

You can swallow that indignation. Clinton didn't ask for a recount, Jul Stein did. Clinton conceded on the 9th of November.

We get it, you hate her.

Brian?

marienbad wrote: »

Is it Stein or Clinton calling for a recount ?

Stein. That doesn't matter though. Another round of Hillary bashing is far preferable to the truth for some.

sxt

Hillary Clinton's campaign leaves the sidelines to take part in recount efforts in Wisconsin

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/us-election-2016/hillary-clintons-campaign-leaves-the-sidelines-to-take-part-in-recount-efforts-in-wisconsin-35247559.html

Hank Scorpio

Brian? wrote: »

Stein. That doesn't matter though. Another round of Hillary bashing is far preferable to the truth for some.

Is it so outlandish to suggest something different than what it appears given the DNC rigged the election for her to beat Bernie. But hey, let's just ignore that whole thing. #RussiaIsWikiLeaks

Rainman16

marienbad wrote: »

Is it Stein or Clinton calling for a recount ?

Officially it's Stein calling for the recounts. But you have to ask the question why? and what's in it for her?

I could be wrong but,To me this stinks of the Clinton's using Stein as a proxy to challenge the vote.

Hande hoche!

Assume Stein will end up with a bit of extra cash for the Green party after the fund raising.

FatherTed

RobertKK wrote: »

The hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton on Trump saying he would keep people in suspense if he would accept the election result:
“It was horrifying what he said,”

“we are a country based on laws. And we’ve had hot, contested elections going back to the very beginning, but one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our elections.”

America has free and fair elections,”

“Somebody wins and somebody loses. So what he said tonight is part of his whole effort to blame somebody else for his campaign.”




So the Clinton campaign say they found no evidence of voting machines being hacked in their investigations.
They are just contesting it because they don't want to accept the result.
I guess she is doing everything she accused Trump of.
But her supporters will not want to say that, it will be double standards.

Please. They're politicians, so naturally they're hypocrites. Both of them.

Hank Scorpio

Where is the proof linking Trump to Russia, that's what I want to see.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Where is the proof linking Trump to Russia, that's what I want to see.

Trump's campaign had plenty of Russian connections, some pretty shady actually.

His campaign manager Paul Manafort at the time they were first caught whoring themselves for a start. He stepped down in August after the FBI began to investigate him on the matter.

Also his foreign policy advisor at that time, Carter Page who has extensive experience investing in Russia, and resigned after coming under investigation for back room deals with Moscow.

His national security advisor Michael Flynn who has been a contributor to Kremlin ran RT and has been at the head of the table alongside Putin at public events in Moscow.

Richard Burt, a lobbyist for Russian-backed gas pipelines, has done speechwriting for Trump during the campaign.

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister publicly brought it up before the election, saying: “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage, we have just begun to consider ways of building dialogue with the future Donald Trump administration and channels we will be using for those purposes”

Of course, Trump loved to brag about the all the self funding of his campaign, and has had 'dispropotionately' close ties with Russia in the business world for a long, long time. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets… we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia” (Eric Trump, 2008). Indirect of course, but it certainly explains why he went and surrounded himself with people so cosy with Putin and makes it all the more curious that they went to such lengths to claim the Trump Organisation has 'no connections to Russia whatsoever'.

Stumbled on this also - former NSA staff have come out and outright said Trump got money from Putin, as well as Erdogan. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-michael-flynn-money-putin-erdogan-nsa-worker-claims-a7437041.html

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Where is the proof linking Trump to Russia, that's what I want to see.

Let's circle back a bit - I started the thread with the WaPo article about Trump's ties to Russia. Later, Osmium stated "Bunch of nonsense." I *then* included some quotes from the head of Homeland Security and Intelligence saying that the DNC hacks were authorized by high levels in the Russian Government.

This was all in support of my statement that the US Congress *should investigate this*. The US Congress has the authority to do so, they could be investigating it NOW, doesn't have to wait.

As part of this, I also brought up Trump's soliciting foreign individuals for donations but I didn't provide links. Billy86, graciously, captured a subset of them out there. As I stated in that arc, this might've been Trump, but I believe it was his campaign. I can't call his campaign inept -they won -but they definitely bungled quite a bit. Of course, so did the others, and they lost. Maybe the functionary who caused this didn't know. Who knows. Doesn't matter.

Hank has now asked, "But where's the proof." Proof is something that is decided by a court of law (in this case). That hasn't happened YET. A Congressional investigation is needed to prove or disprove Trump's support from a hostile foreign government.

As an ASIDE, Trump's statements on this or that whether he thinks someone's great or not, won't matter. Trump blathers whatever jumps to mind to get him clicks and soundbites, controversial or not, sensible or not, true or not. My latest favorite is "I never settle" . I don't care. What I DO care about, as a US citizen, is if we're about to have a President who has secret obligations or debts to Vladimir Putin. Congress should find out. There are a couple online petitions around exactly that - sign up if it matters to you. https://act.credoaction.com/sign/trump_cummings_corruption

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

I've had to delete a dozen or so irrelevant posts from last night. If someone is looking for proof of an assertion, from a post with several assertions contained in it, please be clear as to which assertion you seek proof of. Likewise, once someone clarifies what they are seeking proof of, please don't continue to supply proof of the non-controversial assertion.

This might sound overly complicated but to be clear - please be clearer in your posts and please read each others' posts fully.

TheOven

Brian? wrote: »

You can swallow that indignation. Clinton didn't ask for a recount, Jul Stein did. Clinton conceded on the 9th of November.

We get it, you hate her.

But if it's Clinton it is horrible. I'm sure they were equally as appalled by Trump's....oh there's no point even finishing. We all know what Trump supporters are like.

Billy86

I do wonder what politicians did give money to Trump, and what they will be whispering in his ear in the coming years? After all it's not like those who donated in exchange for favour would let it be known.

26000 Elephants

Has there been a precedent in the US for the level of solicitation for donations sent to foreign politicians seen during the trump campaign?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I do wonder what politicians did give money to Trump, and what they will be whispering in his ear in the coming years? After all it's not like those who donated in exchange for favour would let it be known.

Hang on, didn't CLinton raise multiple of what Trump did? So your theory is therefore that she would owe many more favours if she'd gotten in? To, for example, Saudi decapitation fetishists etc?

marienbad

Rainman16 wrote: »

Officially it's Stein calling for the recounts. But you have to ask the question why? and what's in it for her?

I could be wrong but,To me this stinks of the Clinton's using Stein as a proxy to challenge the vote.

Maybe appointing a climate denier to head the EPA prompted her to take action , maybe a sense that the count was wrong offended her sense of fairness , who knows .

The point is it is Stein called for and raised the money for the recount - not Clinton .