2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

By whom?

If you want to talk about legitimacy, Obama shouldn't be encouraging illegals to vote in the first place.

Seriously ??? Have we gone that far now ? If the divide is this bad is there any point in discussion ?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Seriously ??? Have we gone that far now ? If the divide is this bad is there any point in discussion ?

Looks at least as strong as the "damning" evidence against Trump above consisting entirely of one tweet from a Clinton supporting racist (really) misogynist (really) homophobe (really) dictator.

26000 Elephants

Obama shouldn't be encouraging illegals to vote in the first place.

That hoary chestnut again.

Its funny how you cant decide when Trump s lying ( he is) but you offer a clearly misleading video, which has nothing to do with the point being made?

hint: Illegals don't have a vote. They dont try to vote. They do nothing that will draw attention to themselves. No point in encouraging them, coz they cant and wont!!

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

One tweet from one Clinton loving terrorist dictator is the sum of your "evidence"? Every source you'll find calls the boat and property "sales". He wasn't even in or running for office at the time, unlike the Clintons, so what favours are you going to tell us the Saudis were expecting in return?
So, yet again, do you call every sale a "bailout"?

Yes, it's called evidence. Pretty telling how Trump didn't even deny it. I'm taking that as your way of saying that no, you do not have any evidence against it.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, it's called evidence. Pretty telling how Trump didn't even deny it. I'm taking that as your way of saying that no, you do not have any evidence against it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/set-an-open-course-for-the-virgin-sea

“I bought the boat in the high 20s. I sold the boat essentially for the mortgage that was on the boat. Forty to forty two million, that was the amount of the loan that was on the boat,” The Donald told the Boston Herald in 1991 when they heard his boat repossessed by mortgage-holder Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

So Trump himself has said he sold the boat for exactly what it was worth. Time to switch to saying he's lying, yes? Or is selling something for what it's worth still a "bailout" in your dictionary?

“The deal is subject to approval by the consortium of banks, led by Citibank, that has controlled the Plaza since 1993, after Trump was unable to make loan payments,” wrote Newsday in 1995 on the properties sale.

So he didn't control that sale at all, it was under a consortium. Did they all promise the Saudis some political favours they didn't even have to give?

marienbad

osmiumartist wrote: »

Looks at least as strong as the "damning" evidence against Trump above consisting entirely of one tweet from a Clinton supporting racist (really) misogynist (really) homophobe (really) dictator.

Leave me out of that train wreck discussion please :rolleyes:

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/set-an-open-course-for-the-virgin-sea

So Trump himself has said he sold the boat for exactly what it was worth. Time to switch to saying he's lying, yes? Or is selling something for what it's worth still a "bailout" in your dictionary?

I don't see any evidence of a denial there. In fact, I don't even see any evidence of that being related to the business the House of Saud were referring to.

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/set-an-open-course-for-the-virgin-sea

So Trump himself has said he sold the boat for exactly what it was worth. Time to switch to saying he's lying, yes? Or is selling something for what it's worth still a "bailout" in your dictionary?

If I read that right, The Saudi balied him out of a $42m mortgage - by buying the underlying asset that was worth $20m-ish? :cool:

20Cent

So now trump is saying that the election wasn't fair either with his latest tweet. He really is Making a dogs dinner of the presidency and the democratic process already.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't see any evidence of a denial there. In fact, I don't even see any evidence of that being related to the business the House of Saud were referring to.

So what "bailouts" are they referring to? Do you have anything at all to tell anybody about them other than you are sure they exist and that Trump owes favours for them?

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

So now trump is saying that the election wasn't fair either with his latest tweet. He really is Making a dogs dinner of the presidency and the democratic process already.

The election was not fair. The media coverage of him was disgraceful and the voters gave the establishment a right thumping. Just like Hillary running for President when other candidates on the Democratic side were favoured.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The election was not fair. The media coverage of him was disgraceful and the voters gave the establishment a right thumping. Just like Hillary running for President when other candidates on the Democratic side were favoured.

Trump says there were millions of illegal votes. Questioning the whole system.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

So what "bailouts" are they referring to? Do you have anything at all to tell anybody about them other than you are sure they exist and that Trump owes favours for them?

Sure, I've got the word of the guy who bailed him out, and Trump - famously thin skinned, and famously hyper-active on Twitter - not denying it.

You on the other hand seem to have evidence of further business dealings between them, with the House of Saud helping Trump out of a mortgage on a boat he could not afford. Which, as 26000 Elephants pointed out is actually pretty much what a bailout is.

Hank Scorpio

20Cent wrote: »

Trump says there were millions of illegal votes. Questioning the whole system.

He's showing with this whole recount Business if they want to get dirty he will too. How this isn't obvious to everyone I don't know.

20Cent

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He's showing with this whole recount Business if they want to get dirty he will too. How this isn't obvious to everyone I don't know.

He won. Why would he be worried about a recount?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

You on the other hand seem to have evidence of further business dealings between them, with the House of Saud helping Trump out of a mortgage on a boat he could not afford. Which, as 26000 Elephants pointed out is actually pretty much what a bailout is.

So I need a bit of cash for Christmas and sell a calf. I get the going rate. That's me being "bailed out" according to you.
I could do with a few quid so I put a box of DVDs on ebay. I get pretty much what I expected. That's me being "bailed out" according to you.
Any sale that gets pretty much what you expected is a "bailout".

Hank Scorpio

20Cent wrote: »

He won. Why would he be worried about a recount?

That's a great question to ask Bernie Sanders.

20Cent

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's a great question to ask Bernie Sanders.

Why ask Bernie Sanders why trump is worried about a recount?
Makes no sense!

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

So I need a bit of cash for Christmas and sell a calf. I get the going rate. That's me being "bailed out" according to you.
I could do with a few quid so I put a box of DVDs on ebay. I get pretty much what I expected. That's me being "bailed out" according to you.
Any sale that gets pretty much what you expected is a "bailout".

$42m is not the 'going rate' for a $25m asset. Never was. Never will be.

Thats the very definition of a bailout.


Trump leveraged the boat to high heaven, and the Saudi made him whole.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Sure, I've got the word of the guy who bailed him out, and Trump - famously thin skinned, and famously hyper-active on Twitter - not denying it.

You on the other hand seem to have evidence of further business dealings between them, with the House of Saud helping Trump out of a mortgage on a boat he could not afford. Which, as 26000 Elephants pointed out is actually pretty much what a bailout is.

No, I have been discussing the two known transactions which pretty much everybody on earth has assumed are the "bailouts" the headchopping Clinton fan dictator was alluding to.
Except you of course. You have some other transactions in mind which you mysteriously don't want to tell us any single thing about. Other than they make Trump a traitor of course.

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

$42m is not the 'going rate' for a $25m asset. Never was. Never will be.

So you had the yacht evaluated in 1991? Do tell us how your appraisal went and what your final sum was.
Amazing coincidence to have such inside knowledge here in the thread!
While you're at it, can you tell us again what political favours the Saudis were expecting from Trump who was neither in office or running for office?

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

So you had the yacht evaluated in 1991? Do tell us how your appraisal went and what your final sum was.
Amazing coincidence to have such inside knowledge here in the thread!

No need for appraisal. Donald owed the bank $42m. The headchopper cleared that for him. The boat could have been a leaky tub on the grand canal, it would not have mattered. The saudi got the banks off Donalds back.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

So I need a bit of cash for Christmas and sell a calf. I get the going rate. That's me being "bailed out" according to you.

Try if you buy a house and can't afford to pay the mortgage, so someone offers to buy it off you above market price.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/bail-out
[TRANSITIVE] to help a person or organization that is having problems, especially financial problems

It really is gas to see the lengths you're willing to go to in order to convince yourself Trump doesn't have significant connections to Saudi Arabia, though. :pac:

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No need for appraisal. Donald owed the bank $42m. The headchopper cleared that for him. The boat could have been a leaky tub on the grand canal, it would not have mattered. The saudi got the banks off Donalds back.

So you're not even going to pretend it was anything more than a perfectly normal asset sale? Where's the fun in that? What happened to selling stuff for what it's worth making you a traitor?
Still no suggestion what politic favours the Saudis were expecting from Trump? They have good crystal balls in the desert and knew he'd be running for office in 2016, is that it?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

TIt really is gas to see the lengths you're willing to go to in order to convince yourself Trump doesn't have significant connections to Saudi Arabia, though. :pac:

What's gas is that you didn't even bother to read where I said of course he has plenty of business with Saudi Arabia. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

And Trump's a business man. Of course he has "dealings" with Saudi Arabia.

The present tense is telling there. Of all the truly terrible things about Trump as a potential president, the fact that he genuinely doesn't seem to see a problem with continuing to run his business while running the country probably tops them.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I wonder what information he has.

I'm sure it's as cast-iron as the evidence he had that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

He won. Why would he be worried about a recount?

A recount won't change the opinions of the protestors who have already made up their mind and turned against everyone. Trump is stating the obvious when he says that nothing will come of this. Allegations of corruption emerged long ago. This wouldn't be the first time such corrupt practices were exposed.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A recount won't change the opinions of the protestors who have already made up their mind and turned against everyone. Trump is stating the obvious when he says that nothing will come of this. Allegations of corruption emerged long ago. This wouldn't be the first time such corrupt practices were exposed.

He's saying the recount won't show anything and simultaneously saying there were millions of illegal votes. Contradicting himself.

It's in his interest for the vote to be seen as fair considering he won. If he believes there were millions of illegal votes then the smart thing to do would be to keep it to himself until he's in the White House and have it investigated then.

Jan_de_Bakker

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.

His post was spot on though, what is this hypocrisy with the MSM , When Trump was talking about a rigged election it was the MSM reporting it as dangerous and undemocratic - and then afterwards all this about fake news - yeah fake news - like reports of a rigged election are totally fake !!!

Nooowwwww!!!! - they are totally backtracking on all this fake news - because apparently now rigged elections could be true - cos a "progressive" could get back in over it !!

Keep digging MSM your own grave with that shovel ... keep digging , but in fairness to them the fake news is true - it IS the MSM.

TheOven

Considering there is an estimated 11 million illegals in the US and less when you exclude children. Illegals must have better turn out than US citizens in order for them to turn the popular vote.

Going by his economic plans math was never his strong point in the first place.

aloyisious

this is getting weirder and weirder, like the way all these fake stories were floating around during the pre-vote period. A senior advisor from Don's camp saying they are not worried about the recount, and Don saying there were millions of fake votes. Does anyone really know what is going on?

Brian?

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

His post was spot on though, what is this hypocrisy with the MSM , When Trump was talking about a rigged election it was the MSM reporting it as dangerous and undemocratic - and then afterwards all this about fake news - yeah fake news - like reports of a rigged election are totally fake !!!

Nooowwwww!!!! - they are totally backtracking on all this fake news - because apparently now rigged elections could be true - cos a "progressive" could get back in over it !!

Keep digging MSM your own grave with that shovel ... keep digging , but in fairness to them the fake news is true - it IS the MSM.

I don't see how this is a response to my post. Jill Stein triggered the recount, what has that got to do with media bias?

Hank Scorpio

If this is something to verify the legitimacy of the election, then why pick 3 swing states Trump won closely and not choose somewhere like New Hampshire where he lost by 2000 votes. If she had done so, that wouldn't have raised so many eyebrows, it's about as transparent it it comes imo.

Recounting some of these states is probably going to delay the electorate voting and cause problems down the line, I don't think it's crazy to believe it's a possibility alternative motives are at play here. She's received more funding for this recount that her whole campaign.

I was reading earlier that a recount will likely be blocked in Pennsylvania, but I don't know for sure. I really don't believe anything anymore as far as US politics goes.

Brian?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If this is something to verify the legitimacy of the election, then why pick 3 swing states Trump won closely and not choose somewhere like New Hampshire where he lost by 2000 votes. If she had done that wouldn't have raised so many eyebrows, it's about as transparent it it comes imo.

Recounting some of these states is probably going to delay the electorate voting and cause problems down the line, I don't think it's crazy to believe it's a possibility alternative motives are at play here. She's received more funding for this recount that her whole campaign.

I was reading earlier that a recount will likely be blocked in Pennsylvania, but I don't know for sure.

There are legal methods for initiating a recount in all 50 states. It varies state by state. Jill Stein is taking a perfectly legal step in 3 key states, to satisfy herself that the result was correct.

That's it.

If someone wants to dispute the result in NH, they are perfectly free to do so.

This is federalist republic in action. Sit back and wait for the result. Indignation is pointless.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If this is something to verify the legitimacy of the election, then why pick 3 swing states Trump won closely and not choose somewhere like New Hampshire where he lost by 2000 votes. If she had done that wouldn't have raised so many eyebrows, it's about as transparent it it comes imo.

Recounting some of these states is probably going to delay the electorate voting and cause problems down the line, I don't think it's crazy to believe it's a possibility alternative motives are at play here. She's received more funding for this recount that her whole campaign.

I was reading earlier that a recount will likely be blocked in Pennsylvania, but I don't know for sure. I really don't believe anything anymore as far as US politics goes.

Surely you call for a recount in states where there were suggestions of a possible miscalculation. Going for the 3 closest swing states for no serious reason would be cynacil delaying.

Anyway maybe further investigations should happen before the electoral college votes given Trump is claiming that there has been massive amounts of electoral fraud. I mean with allegations this serious you need big investigations as there must be someone organising this fraud to ensure illegals could vote and that they knew they could. I expect the "law and order" candidate to do something to "drain this swamp".

Unless of course he is full of it and this information was given to him by the same person who told him Obama was born in Kenya or that global warming is a hoax designed by the Chinese...

Hank Scorpio

Brian? wrote: »

There are legal methods for initiating a recount in all 50 states. It varies state by state. Jill Stein is taking a perfectly legal step in 3 key states, to satisfy herself that the result was correct.

That's it.

If someone wants to dispute the result in NH, they are perfectly free to do so.

This is federalist republic in action. Sit back and wait for the result. Indignation is pointless.

I get that it's her right and know there's only a 1% chance of the 3 states being overturned. Really just sick of this dragging on and on even after the election was conceded.

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I get that it's her right and know there's only a 1% chance of the 3 states being overturned. Really just sick of this dragging on and on even after the election was conceded.

Agree. Time to move on. A congressional investigation's needed into the Russian connections of the Trump campaign, the sooner that's started, the better. Unlikely it'll start before next year though.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Surely you call for a recount in states where there were suggestions of a possible miscalculation. Going for the 3 closest swing states for no serious reason would be cynacil delaying.

Anyway maybe further investigations should happen before the electoral college votes given Trump is claiming that there has been massive amounts of electoral fraud. I mean with allegations this serious you need big investigations as there must be someone organising this fraud to ensure illegals could vote and that they knew they could. I expect the "law and order" candidate to do something to "drain this swamp".

Unless of course he is full of it and this information was given to him by the same person who told him Obama was born in Kenya or that global warming is a hoax designed by the Chinese...

There is no tangible proof of any meddling, Steins team have come out repeatedly and said that. Rest of your comment is just bitterness me thinks.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There is no tangible proof of any meddling, Steins team have come out repeatedly and said that. Rest of your comment is just bitterness me thinks.

Trump has proof of meddling apparently...

Anyway I never said there was proof. Overall I feel the recount is a waste of time but if there was proof of meddling then we wouldn't need to check if there was meddling which is what Stein is doing.

InTheTrees

Trump keeps saying it was rigged and there's still two months to go before the inauguration so why not recount/audit?

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

What's gas is that you didn't even bother to read where I said of course he has plenty of business with Saudi Arabia. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Including being bailed out by the House of Saud more than once, one example of which you appear to have linked to yourself. Kind of telling how you decided to cut that bit out the quote tag.

Brian?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There is no tangible proof of any meddling, Steins team have come out repeatedly and said that. Rest of your comment is just bitterness me thinks.

Trump believes there were up to 3 million votes cast illegally. Surely he should be in favour of a full 50 state recount.

Igotadose

Missed this bit, but it's good. Bush's former council says Trump'll be in violation of the constitution when he's sworn in, unless he divests himself of all his business interests, or hands over the proceeds to the US government. The electoral college can't confirm him unless he's divested of his businesses by 19 December when they meet to vote:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-electoral-college-impeachment-obama-bush-ethics-lawyers-norman-a7439516.html

"Richard Painter, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Bush, and Norman Eisen, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Obama, said that the president-elect must sell out from his real estate and business holdings before 19 December, when the electoral college officially appoints the next preside"


(FYI not just the independent's brought this up, and the lawyer in question is a constitutional scholar).

---

Question for the Mods: Should this post have gone on another thread? It is related to the election but only insofar as it's about Electoral college behavior. I think we need a new thread about Trump's ethics (using the term loosely)

KingBrian2

Igotadose wrote: »

Missed this bit, but it's good. Bush's former council says Trump'll be in violation of the constitution when he's sworn in, unless he divests himself of all his business interests, or hands over the proceeds to the US government. The electoral college can't confirm him unless he's divested of his businesses by 19 December when they meet to vote:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-electoral-college-impeachment-obama-bush-ethics-lawyers-norman-a7439516.html

"Richard Painter, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Bush, and Norman Eisen, former chief ethics counsel for Mr Obama, said that the president-elect must sell out from his real estate and business holdings before 19 December, when the electoral college officially appoints the next preside"


(FYI not just the independent's brought this up, and the lawyer in question is a constitutional scholar).

---

Question for the Mods: Should this post have gone on another thread? It is related to the election but only insofar as it's about Electoral college behavior. I think we need a new thread about Trump's ethics (using the term loosely)

Why does a President need a chief ethics counsel? Seems unnecessary. This is why Libertarians have a point. Gvt is way too big if they are employing thousands of civil servants in roles such as this. If Bush had a ethics officer than he was not doing a good job with the president.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Why does a President need a chief ethics counsel? Seems unnecessary.

its like a little angel sitting on your shoulder , well in theory anyway , in practice, well not so much ....:rolleyes:

K-9

@Igotadose, it's fine here as this is a kind of catch all thread.

You'd think general legal counsel would cover it, but then any loopholes might not get spotted! Why do we need so many spin doctors, campaign managers etc., just the way things have gone the last 20 or 30 years in politics and unfortunately we aren't immune to it either.

RobertKK

The results from Michigan have been finally declared, and Trump wins Michigan.

Final electoral college vote:
Trump 306
Clinton 232

Igotadose

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Why does a President need a chief ethics counsel? Seems unnecessary. This is why Libertarians have a point. Gvt is way too big if they are employing thousands of civil servants in roles such as this. If Bush had a ethics officer than he was not doing a good job with the president.

Well, I think having someone who's made a career of studying the constitution is probably a good idea for the person responsible for supporting it in his day job. That'll be Trump in about 6 weeks.

And, I can't wait to see who Trump appoints. If he does. Ethics aren't his strong suit.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Including being bailed out by the House of Saud more than once, one example of which you appear to have linked to yourself. Kind of telling how you decided to cut that bit out the quote tag.

Not really since none of the documented transactions were bailouts of any sort. The imaginary ones that nobody can provide any evidence whatsoever of are damning in the extreme though. What a traitor.

osmiumartist

RobertKK wrote: »

The results from Michigan have been finally declared, and Trump wins Michigan.

Final electoral college vote:
Trump 306
Clinton 232

Stein will just have to add that to her "random" recount list.