What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official 2016 Presidential Race Thread*** Debate #3 TONIGHT! (1 Viewer)

As I said, if they keep control and DON'T approve the current nominee, I just don't see Hillary nominating anyone that they would approve.. Thus it could be 2 years until the next election before anything happens as I don't see her comprising enough to nominate someone they would approve.. :oldunsure:
If Scalia's seat on the SC is still unfilled 2 years from now the chances that we see wholesale incumbent turnover on both sides of the aisle in the midterm elections increase exponentially. None of them want that. The stupid partisan nonsense only plays well with a very small percentage of the electorate as a whole, and people are already hugely pissed.

 
Oh, goodness, I couldn't agree more!  The country's economy historically struggles so with Democratic presidents in charge, the current Democrat in the Oval Office is wildly and historically unpopular, and the "world of hurt" provided by a Democratic Senate would include securing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that would actually imperil the ability of corporations to control and influence daily life in this country, which would be terrible!

Or . . . wait . . . .    
Not true about the economy doing worse under the Democrats. Due to external factors and some luck, it's actually the opposite. 

 
I really hope that Trump kills the RNC this election.  Gives Hillary the needed votes to ram through the supreme court nominee.  Also, pull the RNC to the middle.  Maybe the RNC will realize that radicals are Killin their  party.  
What is the middle? Trump argued against entitlements reform last night. During the campaign his tone was pro lgbt, he favored expanding benefits for working families, he's anti free trade, anti open borders, anti foreign intervention ..... I mean where's this going actually? It looks more to me like Hillary is dragging in a lot of conservatives who've gotten either libertarian or resigned on social issues.

 
I mean let me give you a reminder on the Clintons folks: they go where the votes are. Those conservatives haven't disappeared. They didn't float away into the ether. After Election Day we're going to wake up and find out the King & Queen of Triangulation are BACK.

 
What is the middle? Trump argued against entitlements reform last night. During the campaign his tone was pro lgbt, he favored expanding benefits for working families, he's anti free trade, anti open borders, anti foreign intervention ..... I mean where's this going actually? It looks more to me like Hillary is dragging in a lot of conservatives who've gotten either libertarian or resigned on social issues.
Well, that's the thing with Trump. He really doesn't have consistent or realistic positions on anything, and never has, outside of the angry xenophobe schtick. He isn't taking or leading anyone anywhere.

As far as what the Republican Party should do moving forward IMO -- ditch the medieval social conservatism and the scapegoating of minorities, get reasonable on guns and climate change, and run on the economy / fiscal conservatism. They'd lose the lunatic fringe of their base, but would be able to drag in huge numbers of independents to make up for it IMO.

 
Well, that's the thing with Trump. He really doesn't have consistent or realistic positions on anything, and never has, outside of the angry xenophobe schtick. He isn't taking or leading anyone anywhere.

As far as what the Republican Party should do moving forward IMO -- ditch the medieval social conservatism and the scapegoating of minorities, get reasonable on guns and climate change, and run on the economy / fiscal conservatism. They'd lose the lunatic fringe of their base, but would be able to drag in huge numbers of independents to make up for it IMO.
Yup. Their general views on religion, gays, guns, etc. are why I stay away.

I do like money, though. They have the capitalism thing going on. I'm not down with the Democrats giving out handouts (health care, college education, etc ).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that's the thing with Trump. He really doesn't have consistent or realistic positions on anything, and never has, outside of the angry xenophobe schtick. He isn't taking or leading anyone anywhere.

As far as what the Republican Party should do moving forward IMO -- ditch the medieval social conservatism and the scapegoating of minorities, get reasonable on guns and climate change, and run on the economy / fiscal conservatism. They'd lose the lunatic fringe of their base, but would be able to drag in huge numbers of independents to make up for it IMO.
Everyone says that "there are so many people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative in this country."  But is that really true?  I'm not sure it is.  When I talk to people who describe themselves that way, it turns out that they favor a robust social safety net and even a progressive tax code.  Some might favor eliminating the estate tax or something, but I don't see a lot of people who truly think like, say Gary Johnson, and want to cut federal entitlement spending by 40% or something.  Often, whether they realize it or not, they seem to be pretty much in line with the mainstream of the Democratic party since the 90s. 

 
He didn't win. Every headline is him not accepting the result of the election. It's the talking point now and it ####s him out of any centrist/moderates that he needed to add to his base to win.
There is this weird disconnect where he got as far as he did by saying outrageous stuff and getting massive coverage by the press, which was great when things were going well for him, but now that he is imploding and in death spiral mode, the outrageous statements make him the center of attention in a bad way, so now he will whine that the media is "rigged" when they factually report he said dunderheaded things like I'll keep you in suspense and she is such a nasty woman.

It is almost like he was catapulted by the Republican Party during an attempted siege of the castle (2016 Election and White House), and his trajectory for a while looked like it might carry him over the wall, but than he lost altitude and just went SPLAT against the wall.

* The tactics that worked at the lower Republican nomination level have failed him at the national level. Women, minorities and independents/undecided are no longer buying what he is selling. He was so close for a while, but it has been all down hill since he bombed the first debate, the self-inflicted wounds of 3 AM tweets fat shaming a former Miss Universe, the Bush Bus Magical Mystery Tour, deluge of sexual assault accusations, inexplicable denials based on looks, than the self-administered coup-de-grace last night leaving his political future circling down the toilet of history.       

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is this weird disconnect where he got as far as he did by saying outrageous stuff and getting massive coverage by the press, which was great when things were going well for him, but now that he is imploding and in death spiral mode, the outrageous statements make him the center of attention in a bad way, so now he will whine that the media is "rigged" when they factually report he said dunderheaded things like I'll keep you in suspense and she is such a nasty woman.

It is almost like he was catapulted by the Republican Party during an attempted siege of the castle (2016 Election and White House), and his trajectory for a while looked like it might carry him over the wall, but than he lost altitude and just went SPLAT against the wall.     
I like that analogy--all that hot air was good until he launched, but the more hot air he spews once he's in flight, the less likely he is to stay high enough to get over that wall.

 
Last time the Democrats controlled all 3 We got the wonderful ACA which is crashing and burning and taking the rest of us with it.
No, the aca as we know it was born when the dems lost the supermajority and had to use reconciliation to update a previously passed version.  The republicans then opposed even discussing the bill, although thry were righteously pissed at having been left out of the proceedings up until that point, which led to every senator with a back to demand it get scratched before they'd sign, which is specifically why there are sp many issues with the version of the aca we ended up with.  And with the republicans controlling congress after that, it became impossible to fix, because they kept voting to nix it, not fix it.  It's a story that will be told in history textbooks for a long time.

 
Everyone says that "there are so many people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative in this country."  But is that really true?  I'm not sure it is.  When I talk to people who describe themselves that way, it turns out that they favor a robust social safety net and even a progressive tax code.  Some might favor eliminating the estate tax or something, but I don't see a lot of people who truly think like, say Gary Johnson, and want to cut federal entitlement spending by 40% or something.  Often, whether they realize it or not, they seem to be pretty much in line with the mainstream of the Democratic party since the 90s. 
Don't really disagree with this at all -- I was more talking about how they can shift to stay relevant in national elections moving forward. More of a perception issue IMO.

 
I really doubt this. It's been lost in the Presidential race fireworks, but Americans have been really pissed at Congress for the last few years -- the last approval rating I saw for Congress as a whole was 11% or something. And it's largely due to BS like refusing to even hold hearings on Garland.
How has that really mattered to any of them?

 
seriously, why would you even mention you wouldn't support the election result?    that's going to be a huge controversy and indicative of the loose cannon he is.  what's to be gained by even going there other than more meat for you base.
Because Trump's self-image and fantasy lifestyle projection for his followers depends on his being a "winner", but even he can see he is bombing so badly the only way he can twist this into a "win" is by claiming the election was stolen from him. He is just paving the way for his face saving end game and exit strategy, and that is what all the rigged election rhetoric has been about lately (it also helped get the conversation off Trump as deranged serial sexual assaulter, too, so there's that). 

 
Everyone says that "there are so many people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative in this country."  But is that really true?  I'm not sure it is.  When I talk to people who describe themselves that way, it turns out that they favor a robust social safety net and even a progressive tax code.  Some might favor eliminating the estate tax or something, but I don't see a lot of people who truly think like, say Gary Johnson, and want to cut federal entitlement spending by 40% or something.  Often, whether they realize it or not, they seem to be pretty much in line with the mainstream of the Democratic party since the 90s. 
I don't know if anyone has noticed but we haven't actually had a real debate in this country during this campaign.

Hillary's answer last night on entitlement "reform" could have easily come from Paul Ryan. Trump's response (aside from muttering 'horrible woman') could have come from Mike Gravel. Trump's response was hey growth will take care of entitlements and his plan is he wouldn't cut anything. That's traditional Democratic stuff.

On the tax code Trump called out Hillary for cementing the tax break that everyone has called him out for as Senator and accused of her of having no intent of getting rid of it. She did not exactly rebuke him, in fact she didn't say a word in response to that as an issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still going with my initial feelings that if/when Hillary wins, the current nominee for the Supreme Court will be approved as fast as they can.. The Republicans fully supported the nominee the last time he came up.

The only reason they haven't approved him is because Obama nominated him.. But 99.9% sure they are more worried what she'll nominate and sooner or later that open spot has to be filled.

If she wins and the Republicans keep control of the Senate and House and they don't approve him, then we easily could be looking at 2 to 4 years before we have a full court again. :oldunsure:
Hillary, but for gay and abortion issues really, is closer to a Regan Republican than anybody not named Kasich that ran this year.  The GOP really should love her.  Bill worked very well with them until they went all family-values on him for some reason.

 
Hillary, but for gay and abortion issues really, is closer to a Regan Republican than anybody not named Kasich that ran this year.  The GOP really should love her.  Bill worked very well with them until they went all family-values on him for some reason.
Agree, but don't try to tell our "liberals" that.  They don't like it.

 
You realize it's legal for a business to carry forward a tax loss, it's a law? Not illegal, all business can do it? So I assume you are saying if you had a business that lost money and your CPA advised your tax owed was lower the following year you would advise him you would like to pay extra?

You also realize its legal to buy steel from China? Half the items in your house were also made in China, is that illegal?

His returns would show he used legal tax deductions in the best interest of his business and partner but knows the liberal media would run wild with the "effective tax rate" being lower. Depreciation is also legal and used by all real estate investors that leads to lower effective rate.

Her actions could lead to jail time for anyone not named Clinton is a reason emails should be available.......and the ones leaked don't make her look too good so far.
Article excerpt - Responded Trump: "For 30 years, you’ve been in a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I — make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind. The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You don’t."

Does Trump realize that when Clinton was variously First Lady, Senator and Sec. of State during this time frame, she was not a Joseph Stalin-like dictator with the personal authority and power to unilaterally enact 100% of American laws. He keeps up this relentless refrain, and it betrays a profoundly ignorant grasp of how politics works in general and her role specifically. As for the steel, it makes him look bad to campaign in states and talk about how he is for the steel industry and against their workers losing jobs, and than buy Chinese steel. If he wants to do that, fine, but don't act like he is their champion.     

Clinton Rips Trump For Using Chinese Steel in His Buildings

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/trump-chinese-steel-chicago-tower-hillary-clinton

CHICAGO — Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Wednesday night charged her GOP counterpart, Donald Trump, of using Chinese steel and aluminum in building his namesake towers.

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a Newsweek investigation that said that Trump used metals unfairly "dumped" on the U.S. in his structures, including in buildings in Chicago and Las Vegas.

In Chicago, Trump used Permasteelisa Cladding Technologies Ltd, a Connecticut-based company that imports steel from its affiliated companies in China, Newsweek said.

The Newsweek report said: "During the time of the Trump Chicago construction, according to documents filed with the United States Court of International Trade by the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce, Permasteelisa was dumping aluminum used in curtain walls, meaning it was using predatory pricing to sell the products below the cost of production or the amount charged in China."

The report said the Chicago's Trump Tower has a "curtain wall" made of 11,500 glass panels framed with 207,000 feet of aluminum. Newsweek acknowledges "tracing the metal back to China is a difficult process" but uses documents to link the Trump project to the imports.
It also says what Trump did was not illegal but estimates that the decision cost American companies about $350 million.

Trump's campaign did not comment on the story.

On the campaign trail Trump has used the American steel and aluminum industry's struggles as an example of bad trade deals, saying the situation "is essentially killing our steel workers."

Wednesday night, Clinton said, "One of the biggest problems we have with China is the illegal dumping of steel and aluminum into our markets. I have fought against that as a senator. I’ve stood up against it as secretary of state."

Trump "has bought Chinese steel and aluminum," she said. "In fact, the Trump Hotel right here in Las Vegas was made with Chinese steel. So he goes around with crocodile tears about how terrible it is, but he has given jobs to Chinese steelworkers, not American steelworkers."

Responded Trump: "For 30 years, you’ve been in a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I — make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind. The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You don’t."

The AFL-CIO union said the dumped steel was sold for “below the cost of production or the amount charged in China.”

"This means American aluminum companies couldn’t possibly compete with foreign companies willing to take losses on the sales of their building materials in hopes of driving companies in the United States out of business. Patriotic," the union said on its site.

* Of course Trump can take whatever deductions are legal (though he has done several hinky ones before, that we know about). But than it looks bad to pretend he is for the "little guy" and in the past rail on the wealthy not paying their fair share of taxes, if they are merely taking the same deductions he enjoys? He can't have it both ways. Blaming Clinton for being 100% responsible for the US government not shutting down the loop holes he brags about exploiting is again just ignorant and shameless rhetoric. He was also wrong to make claims about Buffet when he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. 

He runs in part on being a genius business mind, but where did the near $1 billion deduction come from? Trying to operate businesses he knew nothing about (a monkey would know as much about how to run an airline), cannibalizing his own casino businesses by putting three right next to each other. I didn't vet the stat, but heard his 4 X BK casino business was the most of ANY major American corporation in that time frame, a somewhat less than sterling record, which belies his carnie barking about how great he is.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone says that "there are so many people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative in this country."  But is that really true?  I'm not sure it is.  When I talk to people who describe themselves that way, it turns out that they favor a robust social safety net and even a progressive tax code.  Some might favor eliminating the estate tax or something, but I don't see a lot of people who truly think like, say Gary Johnson, and want to cut federal entitlement spending by 40% or something.  Often, whether they realize it or not, they seem to be pretty much in line with the mainstream of the Democratic party since the 90s. 
I think it would be more accurate to say "there are so many people who are left of center socially and right of center fiscally".

 
Trump posted on Twitter Drudge Report poll which has him win 75% tonight. Also Washington Times says 77%.
Trump Network has him at 100%.

One thing about Trump calling Clinton a nasty woman, that is ridiculous considering the source. The whole Republican nomination process was 100% you are a dummy head and doo doo face, like if Don Rickles was in kindergarten level bullying and insults. It would be like if in a riot, Trump hit somebody over the head with a pipe, than they hit HIM over the head with a pipe, and he looked over at the police and said, "That isn't right, she hit me over the head with a pipe."  

 
Da Guru said:
Anybody else but Trump running and Clinton may have had to drop out of the race and be replaced with all the corruption leaks. That Mrs. Clinton is going to win is almost incomprehensible to any logical person due to all her baggage. My 2 daughters are voting for the first time ever and they do not like Trump....but they despise Mrs. Clinton and view her as a despicable liar...so both are voting Johnson.  Of course Johnson has no chance but if any year a "good" third party candidate had a chance it would have been this year.
Imo they're just telling you that because you hate her so much and they still want you to pay for college.

 
bostonfred said:
No, the aca as we know it was born when the dems lost the supermajority and had to use reconciliation to update a previously passed version.  The republicans then opposed even discussing the bill, although thry were righteously pissed at having been left out of the proceedings up until that point, which led to every senator with a back to demand it get scratched before they'd sign, which is specifically why there are sp many issues with the version of the aca we ended up with.  And with the republicans controlling congress after that, it became impossible to fix, because they kept voting to nix it, not fix it.  It's a story that will be told in history textbooks for a long time.
I hope the books will be written by historians enjoying universal health care coverage.

 
bostonfred said:
snogger said:
Last time the Democrats controlled all 3 We got the wonderful ACA which is crashing and burning and taking the rest of us with it.
No, the aca as we know it was born when the dems lost the supermajority and had to use reconciliation to update a previously passed version.  The republicans then opposed even discussing the bill, although thry were righteously pissed at having been left out of the proceedings up until that point, which led to every senator with a back to demand it get scratched before they'd sign, which is specifically why there are sp many issues with the version of the aca we ended up with.  And with the republicans controlling congress after that, it became impossible to fix, because they kept voting to nix it, not fix it.  It's a story that will be told in history textbooks for a long time.
To be clear...the changes that came in reconciliation were adjustments to budgetary items, not to major provisions.  What we have today is pretty much what Obama settled for originally (with the super majority) after the dems got hold of his "public option" proposal and hacked it to pieces.  

 
snogger said:
Last time the Democrats controlled all 3 We got the wonderful ACA which is crashing and burning and taking the rest of us with it.

BTW.. Just so you know, I'd feel the same way if the Republicans were going to gain control of all 3.

Either Party in Full control puts me in this guys place :scared:
This is a legitimate reason to hope the Dems win back the House and Senate, IMO.

It's not clear that the ACA is worse than the previous status quo, but either way, it is fairly clear that the ACA is far from perfect and could use a lot of fixing up. It has real problems. The larger scope of coverage is great, but premiums are starting to spiral in a way that could mean real trouble.

The problem is that it will be impossible to fix as long as the Republicans control the House. Nothing will get done. It might be an exaggeration to say that many House Republicans actually want to see it fail so that it will be a black eye for Obama and the Democrats. But it very likely could fail without corrective measures, and no such measures will be agreed to by House Republicans. They'd rather just keep futilely trying to repeal it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Lieberman is really the one to be blamed here.  He killed the chances of a public option. 

It was somewhat satisfying watching a the Democrats who sabotauged Obama to save their seats get thrown out by the Tea Party.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Article excerpt - Responded Trump: "For 30 years, you’ve been in a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I — make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind. The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You don’t."

Does Trump realize that when Clinton was variously First Lady, Senator and Sec. of State during this time frame, she was not a Joseph Stalin-like dictator with the personal authority and power to unilaterally enact 100% of American laws. He keeps up this relentless refrain, and it betrays a profoundly ignorant grasp of how politics works in general and her role specifically. As for the steel, it makes him look bad to campaign in states and talk about how he is for the steel industry and against their workers losing jobs, and than buy Chinese steel. If he wants to do that, fine, but don't act like he is their champion.     

Clinton Rips Trump For Using Chinese Steel in His Buildings

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/trump-chinese-steel-chicago-tower-hillary-clinton

CHICAGO — Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton Wednesday night charged her GOP counterpart, Donald Trump, of using Chinese steel and aluminum in building his namesake towers.

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a Newsweek investigation that said that Trump used metals unfairly "dumped" on the U.S. in his structures, including in buildings in Chicago and Las Vegas.

In Chicago, Trump used Permasteelisa Cladding Technologies Ltd, a Connecticut-based company that imports steel from its affiliated companies in China, Newsweek said.

The Newsweek report said: "During the time of the Trump Chicago construction, according to documents filed with the United States Court of International Trade by the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce, Permasteelisa was dumping aluminum used in curtain walls, meaning it was using predatory pricing to sell the products below the cost of production or the amount charged in China."

The report said the Chicago's Trump Tower has a "curtain wall" made of 11,500 glass panels framed with 207,000 feet of aluminum. Newsweek acknowledges "tracing the metal back to China is a difficult process" but uses documents to link the Trump project to the imports.
It also says what Trump did was not illegal but estimates that the decision cost American companies about $350 million.

Trump's campaign did not comment on the story.

On the campaign trail Trump has used the American steel and aluminum industry's struggles as an example of bad trade deals, saying the situation "is essentially killing our steel workers."

Wednesday night, Clinton said, "One of the biggest problems we have with China is the illegal dumping of steel and aluminum into our markets. I have fought against that as a senator. I’ve stood up against it as secretary of state."

Trump "has bought Chinese steel and aluminum," she said. "In fact, the Trump Hotel right here in Las Vegas was made with Chinese steel. So he goes around with crocodile tears about how terrible it is, but he has given jobs to Chinese steelworkers, not American steelworkers."

Responded Trump: "For 30 years, you’ve been in a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I — make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind. The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You don’t."

The AFL-CIO union said the dumped steel was sold for “below the cost of production or the amount charged in China.”

"This means American aluminum companies couldn’t possibly compete with foreign companies willing to take losses on the sales of their building materials in hopes of driving companies in the United States out of business. Patriotic," the union said on its site.

* Of course Trump can take whatever deductions are legal (though he has done several hinky ones before, that we know about). But than it looks bad to pretend he is for the "little guy" and in the past rail on the wealthy not paying their fair share of taxes, if they are merely taking the same deductions he enjoys? He can't have it both ways. Blaming Clinton for being 100% responsible for the US government not shutting down the loop holes he brags about exploiting is again just ignorant and shameless rhetoric. He was also wrong to make claims about Buffet when he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. 

He runs in part on being a genius business mind, but where did the near $1 billion deduction come from? Trying to operate businesses he knew nothing about (a monkey would know as much about how to run an airline), cannibalizing his own casino businesses by putting three right next to each other. I didn't vet the stat, but heard his 4 X BK casino business was the most of ANY major American corporation in that time frame, a somewhat less than sterling record, which belies his carnie barking about how great he is.   
I think where he is coming from is make him buy local through taxing China more and incentives to bring those businesses back home. As a business owner he's obligated to his employees and partners to legally do what he can to make the business succeed. 

If he had 5 investments and 4 filed bankruptcy I would agree he's a terrible business man. With hundreds they aren't all going to make it. Who is thriving in Atlantic City? I can't agree with all his decisions but running a business isn't always popular decisions. I have more respect for what he's accomplished than someone who used their political fame to make $250k at a time giving speeches to Wall Street. 

Don't mistake this for me thinking he would make a great President. 

 
I think where he is coming from is make him buy local through taxing China more and incentives to bring those businesses back home. As a business owner he's obligated to his employees and partners to legally do what he can to make the business succeed. 

If he had 5 investments and 4 filed bankruptcy I would agree he's a terrible business man. With hundreds they aren't all going to make it. Who is thriving in Atlantic City? I can't agree with all his decisions but running a business isn't always popular decisions. I have more respect for what he's accomplished than someone who used their political fame to make $250k at a time giving speeches to Wall Street. 

Don't mistake this for me thinking he would make a great President. 
[Let me preface this by saying the below has nothing to do with who you choose to vote for, we're just having a discussion of the relative merits/flaws of the respective candidates, I may not agree, but respect your right to your opinions] 

Again, he can do whatever he wants, but we don't know what he woulda, coulda done, we know what he has done. He says one thing, and does another - the latter which is fine, but don't take others to task for the exact same thing he is doing. Flip it around, isn't it incoherent and hypocritical to blame other companies for leaving if it is cheaper for them to do, don't they ALSO have obligations, how is it not a double standard to blame them for doing exactly the same thing he is doing.    

Trump has failed at many businesses, not just the casino operation of 4 BKs. But on that, if Atlantic City is hard to make a living in the casino business, all the more reason to not have three right next to each other. Didn't he at some late stage convert his failing casino business into a "stock" (knowing it had heinous fundamentals and likely at serious risk to fail), which when it tanked, took down the saving of a lot people who trusted Trump's "Midas Touch" brand? To me, that is far worse, and harmed people in a way that the Clinton's getting paid for speeches never could.

Their foundation is constantly slammed, but it has made less expensive AIDS meds available for close to 10 million people. Trump's sham foundation buys 6' portraits of himself, Tim Tebow helmets, settles law suits and is used for bribes like the Florida overseer who opted to not investigate the rip off, con artist Trump University.

Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/      

* A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-511034.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Let me preface this by saying the below has nothing to do with who you choose to vote for, we're just having a discussion of the relative merits/flaws of the respective candidates, I may not agree, but respect your right to your opinions] 

Again, he can do whatever he wants, but we don't know what he woulda, coulda done, we know what he has done. He says one thing, and does another - the latter which is fine, but don't take others to task for the exact same thing he is doing. Flip it around, isn't it incoherent and hypocritical to blame other companies for leaving if it is cheaper for them to do, don't they ALSO have obligations, how is it not a double standard to blame them for doing exactly the same thing he is doing.    

Trump has failed at many businesses, not just the casino operation of 4 BKs. But on that, if Atlantic City is hard to make a living in the casino business, all the more reason to not have three right next to each other. Didn't he at some late stage convert his failing casino business into a "stock" (knowing it had heinous fundamentals and likely at serious risk to fail), which when it tanked, took down the saving of a lot people who trusted Trump's "Midas Touch" brand? To me, that is far worse, and harmed people in a way that the Clinton's getting paid for speeches never could.

Their foundation is constantly slammed, but it has made less expensive AIDS meds available for close to 10 million people. Trump's sham foundation buys 6' portraits of himself, Tim Tebow helmets, settles law suits and is used for bribes like the Florida overseer who opted to not investigate the rip off, con artist Trump University.

Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/      

* A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-511034.html
I see what you are saying, I think it was Ford he was calling out? But he also many times follows with saying that's why we need to make it attractive and profitable for them to come back and create jobs. But the guy is all over the place, I'm surprised for someone who has been as successful he doesn't come across too intelligent or at least able to "sell" the public that he is capable. Quite the opposite probably coming across much worse than he is. Many successful real estate developers can BS a lot better.

As far as the investors he hurt, they are big boys.....all investments come with risk. The Great Recession took down a TON of developers......good ones along with bad. Therefore I don't really see that as a big issue as the successes far outweigh the failures. I've seen that article and I think it's just the extreme media bias that has made me discount them zeroing in n failures.

While the Clinton Foundation seems extremely shady I honestly don't know enough on both to compare. His portrait sounds ridiculous but in the big scheme that's not a real big number, I'm sure they both are questionable. More just shows he's like the other real rich dooshy guys I can't relate to.

Definitely respect your point of view although we may not be voting the same. Overall real disappointed these are our choices and disgusted with politicians in general. Want an outside the box choice....Trump is a little too far outside unfortunately.

 
He's ####ting all over the dinner.  About 1/5 of the things were actually jokes, and the rest were just his rants against Hillary.  The Melania speech joke was a good one though.

 
Donald and Hillary are speaking at some New York dinner right now that will probably be the last time they'll be in the same room together before the election. It's on CNN.

ETA: If this was the Trump that had shown up at the debates Hillary would have been in trouble. He's actually funny.
Oh, he went off the rails there too. 

 
I just watched both speeches.  Trump was awful.  Hillary was maybe slightly better but still pretty terrible.  They might want to stop having these dinners for at least four years.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top