It actually is. I know in la la land, and Left Wing universities teaching a "progressive" agenda, that this would appear to be incorrect, but it isn't. Trump is a multi-millionaire for more than just the lopsided and biased reason you have given. He is bloody intelligent. He's created jobs and businesses all over the world and understands how to get a good deal. Not a bad deal. He understands negotiations and the economy. Hillary has done nothing like that. Who would be better for jobs and a stable economy—a man who has wrote the book (literally) on business, or a woman who has simply made corrupt self-serving deals with places like Saudi, which don't benefit America at all? Next to Trump, Hillary is a lizard when it comes to business. The answer is: Trump is the better person. By far.
He is a multi-millionaire because he was born with a golden spoon in his mouth and born into his father's business connections. His first loan from his father was given to him in gambling chips, which is one of the dirtiest laundering tactics. Any American born into the same situation would be equally as rich. The man has business sense, but his business sense is 'buyer beware' which we've moved away from ethically as a country for 80 or more years. It's not 'smart' to avoid paying your share of taxes, it's just stealing from your own country. Trump is only in it for Trump. Everyone else is merely a stepping stone.
A very simplified view of his entire economic plan, which tells me you've just tuned into the soundbites of CNN. Why don't you research things fully and come to your own conclusion based on evidence? Also, people aren't entitled to anything. They should get off their arses and work. Trump has also said he would tax the super rich more. It's all there.
Actually, I've had my eyes on trump for at least 10 years, and the man is very different in front of the country compared to when he was just a 'business man'. He only created his platform to tax the ultra rich after he originally stated that we as a country need to subsidize the owners of big business and big business itself more. Which, if you research into how big business creates oligopolies in the US, you would know that it is BAD for us. He states flatly that this will stimulate the economy - but we know from George W. Bush, that it doesn't stimulate the economy - it just makes the rich richer while the rest suffer. We currently take from the Poor and give to the Rich, and this doesn't work.
Ad hominems and this ridiculous appeal to emotion do your argument no favours at all. He clearly isn't an idiot, because he's at the top of his profession running for US president. He is a very wealthy man that owns and runs multiple businesses around the world. So let's put the idiot accusation to bed. Secondly, he does not believe it is a "Chinese conspiracy" - this again is symptomatic of you reading headlines in the biased media, like CNN, rather than doing your own research. He does believe that global warming tax is largely a joke on the public and being used to generate funds by a kind of stealth-tax. As I do. It's absolutely crystal clear that only a few countries are playing fair, and China is not. There is no concrete evidence of man-made global warming, and even if there were, it's STILL being used by the government to tax the general public. Do you honestly think Hillary gives a damn about the "ozone layer"? Haha.
His success is only proof of his passion, desire and commitment... Which are good things, (Hillary also has these traits) but it says nothing of his smarts. You don't have to be smart to be successful. I give him -no- credit for being an 'intelligent' man. It's not 'smart' to screw someone over. It's not 'smart' to not pay your taxes. It's unethical and morally bankrupt. It's not 'smart' to assume individual carbon footprints don't contribute to the overall climate - it's promotion of ignorance. The man has no humility. I don't really know if Trump even believes there IS an ozone layer. (I'm being cheeky here, obviously) I actually have listened to that man for hours, and find it almost comical at this point.
I believe Hillary does give a damn, yes. She wouldn't have been in public service her entire life if she was only out to benefit herself only. In that above statement, I wasn't -really- using ad hominem. Ad hominem would be 'his hair is gross, he must be evil!' (as an extreme example) I was attacking his words directly, but not using it as proof of anything other than he is an idiot, which was my topic of debate. You can draw your own conclusions from his statements as well. The evidence of his own words and actions has painted him this way for me for a long time. (Far before his rise to politician)
They became rich, generally, by getting off their arse and doing something. By bettering themselves. What you propose is ethically bankrupt. And I am as poor as they come, so I have no vested interest in saying that. Tax should be done by % only - which is totally fair for all. Taxing rich people and giving it to poor people is just a silly socialist idea.
He became rich because his daddy was. He's been riding that pony his whole life.
Taxation should be based upon your 'privilege' for more wealth. What I propose isn't taxing the rich and giving to the poor - it's taxing the rich who live in this country and created their wealth off the 'machine' that is the people and the state. If these people were born in another country, they would not be afforded the same rights and privileges, which enable them to freely seek out wealth and success. I believe there should be a price tag on this privilege and let's just call it a 'tax' to benefit the country itself. Britain has it too - and it works. In the USA, these taxes also enable citizens to have nice roadways, emergency services, public education, and the safety of the largest military in the world. You can't currently buy that kind of security. People can only make money off of the country due to their freedoms, which should cost them. It's an investment in their own success.
See above. It's not what he proposes, and it's not insane.
It's hard to keep up with him modifying his positions after every debate, or when he gets caught saying something totally off-base and backpedals.
I did a bit of snooping through those emails, and what I realized is that I would be really interested in seeing Trumps emails.
Using a private server wasn't illegal. Using it to look at classified information was. It's a complicated subject, and the FBI will get the information it needs to make a judgement.
I want to see a wikileaks articles on Trump. Assange has a personal vendetta against Hillary, and it clouds his judgement.
This woman has been caught lying repeatedly, has broken the law, has been placed under an FBI investigation, and has accepted a ton of dirty money. It's a fact.
Donald Trump lies every time he gets up to speak, so how is he any better?
Every person in political power is being watched by the FBI. I believe if she is guilty of anything with her emails, it's gross neglect regarding deleting emails with classified information - which IS part of the law/statute. We will see what the feds say in the next coming weeks.
That's because you haven't researched anything yourself again. A familiar pattern I am seeing while replying to you.
Just because my research gives me different results, doesn't mean I'm not researching. I seek out as many news sources as possible for the information I look towards so that I can have the most 'even-keeled' perspective possible because like most, I lean towards one side more than the other and don't want that to pollute my ability to see the 'truth' of the situation. Stop trying to belittle me - it's not working.
She is guilty. We know for a fact that her server was illegal and her deleted emails was an illegal act. Even if she was smelling of roses elsewhere, anyone else lower down in public office would have likely been jailed.
The server wasn't illegal. Was it a frowned upon practice? Yes. Deleting classified emails -is- against the law, as it pertains to the obstruction of justice. So far, the FBI has continually maintained it's position that she had no intent to harm the US, obstruct justice, or 'leak' information. And yes, intent is a large consideration in these cases. Snowden WANTED to screw the system (and yes the system totally deserved it because what it was doing was wrong). Assange is just really pissed off that for wikileaks, he's an enemy of the state, but for a few classified emails, she's not. It's a bit of a double standard, but at the same time, who gave Julian Assange the right to learn, crack, and make public (what he wants) private information? If you don't think he's a criminal, you really shouldn't think Hillary is either.
It doesn't matter if she did or did not - and THAT my friend is conjecture on your part, because you have no way to know she didn't. What we DO know is that she
She has stated many times that she reluctantly took the case. It's in print in her biography. ALSO - the prosecuting attorney stated that she didn't want the case. She was appointed to it and didn't want to refuse the Judge's request. The prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson is the one who recommended her to the judge, who appointed her. Check in with Snopes. And before you say 'snopes is liberal!' - that lie came about when Snopes was blowing off the lids of the Obama 'scandals' - the owner/operator of Snopes registered as republican in 2000 and as an independent in 2009, and his wife is a Canadian citizen that can't vote. Snopes has also never taken any money that is politically affiliated.
a. Laughed her head off at the fact she knew the man was guilty
She laughed nervously about how the polygraph was wrong, and it made her lose faith in them. She didn't laugh that this man was guilty and she was going to get him off, which is the general attitude of people who didn't listen to all of the tapes.
I think the end result was completely horrible - but let's look at it from a law point of view: (from nolo.com) "Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. (See Canon 7, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime."
b. Made an illegal defence, by lying that the rape victim (who was in a coma for 5 days), pursued older men - and was the one to blame for the rape. LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MOMENT. It's all there on video and in writing. Evidence. Her victim has come forward and explained how Hillary's behaviour only added to her torment.
It wasn't an illegal defense, and there was no 'lie'. She was informed by someone that this was the issue (hell, it could have been her client that informed her of this) and persued it as legal defense. It currently wouldn't fly in that state since the laws have changed, but at the time, this was perfectly normal for a rape case. (am I condoning it? no. stop throwing fuzzy logic at me)
And you're here excusing this? Wow, what a wonderfully "progressive" person you are.
I'm not happy about the outcome of the case at ALL, but did she do her job as required ethically of her? Yes. Are you telling me that all defense attorneys are horrible people for doing their job to the best of their ability? You're being pretty blanketed here. If she had done a crappy job, it would have made the prosecutor and the judge both look bad professionally, so tell me then: what should she have done?
An impassioned defence for a rape enabler. Let me use an emotional argument on you: Do you actually feel good at defending this very bad person, Hillary Clinton, even for lying about a child victim of rape?
Now you're just pandering to your own passion. That statement is actual ad hominem, btw.
I'm not defending a 'rape enabler' - i'm defending the system of law as it exists.
Again, total ignorance that has been fed to you by the MSM. It's painful for me to reply to all these, it's that transparent that you know absolutely nothing. Hillary has destroyed Libya. She even laughed that Gadaffi was murdered. She orchestrated it all (source: wikileaks/Assange). Trump wants to stop antagonizing a nuclear power and instead ally with it to destroy IS (which Clinton and Obama largely caused the rise of), and stabilize the region. Yet, you are here making some ridiculous comment about Trump being some sort of Russian agent.
"it's that transparent that you know absolutely nothing."
Wow. You're a real winner. Now you're attacking ME personally. You sir, need to learn to debate.
As far as antagonizing a world power -- from everything I've seen/heard, Trump has done that quite a bit himself. Look at the current treaties we have with most first world Nuclear capable countries and Donald Trump's view on them. Hillary, as a representative of this country even addressed this as an 'aside' to the main political powers of the world that we are 'a country of our word' and won't back out of our treaties.
Hillary has made mistakes, and the issues in Libya are a large part of that - but she's not the one making all of those calls. She may have been a huge proponent of it, but she's not solely responsible for those failures. You have to blame the Government itself and not look to her as a patsy.
I'd say it's more likely that he looked at Germany and France and what the Muslims are doing there - and thought "Do we want that here", especially unvetted Syrian Muslims, many of them we now KNOW have IS members among their ranks. Is that what you call a bad foreign policy? Is allying with Russia to stabilize a region a bad policy? I think blowing up Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other countries is a bad foreign policy. But, oh, look, you're here defending Hillary against that too.
I don't like that about Hillary either - she's got this 'speak softly but carry a big stick' mentality that leans towards force as well. Didn't I say neither candidate was awesome? I think she isn't as good as Obama or Bernie, but I don't think she'll do great harm to this country.
On the subject of migrants, she says very specifically that there needs to be proper vetting.
As far as Russia is concerned, I think allying with Russia to stabilize a region by force is bad policy. Especially when the attack promoted and reinforced the rule of Syria's president, whom we as a country opposed during this brutal 4 year civil war. Also, Russia is ALL ABOUT murdering civilians.
"Russian airstrikes have killed 9,364 people.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the total killed included 3,804 civilians, among them 906 children. Those killed also included 2,746 members of Islamic State and 2,814 people from other rebel and militant groups, including Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria."
Yes. She has. Or do you think being under FBI investigation twice is ordinary?
Actually, yes. It is when you're that powerful, influential, and making lots of money. My father has been under FBI investigation in the past because he was working with one of the largest black baptist church leaders the US had ever seen, whom had more power than the country was comfortable with. The church leader's reaction was "welcome to the big boys".
It is. America has a massive deficit. Obama has greatly added to it. Race relations are at an all time low. Police killings, you name it.
From the article that you, yourself posted above:
While the figure was expected, the increase represents a reversal from previous years, in which budget deficits had steadily declined from the massive $1.4 trillion annual deficit early in Mr. Obama’s first term during the recession.
In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a $534 billion deficit in fiscal 2016, which ends on Sept. 30.
“Even as the administration made critical investments to support economic growth, it also succeeded in putting the nation on a sound fiscal path,” Mr. Donovan said. “Since 2009 federal deficits have fallen by nearly three-quarters as a share of the economy — the most rapid sustained reduction since just after World War II.”
What you missed in that article is that although the defecit is now back to 600 billion(due to recent good investments), that is a FAR CRY from the 1.4 trillion that George W. Bush handed him. This 'doubling' was only after the initial trouncing the defecit took, and only because we've invested in ourselves more again.
Race relations are finally at the forefront since the civil rights movement. Black and Latino people have been oppressed in this country for far too long - it's not a NEW issue, it's just that now - for the first time, minorities feel like they have real power and a true voice to be heeded within our government, especially with the power of social media. Also, police brutality (which I have been a victim of) is FINALLY getting addressed. It seems crazy and volatile, but it's merely a time of change. Growing pains suck.
Germany said that once. Now women need to go to swimming baths in groups on their own due to migrant molestations and rape. Cologne in Germany saw over one thousand women groped or sexually assaulted last year in ONE DAY alone. France has seen over 200 people dead in under 18 months. And you want to bring this to America? You want to open borders to people you have no idea of their backgrounds. That isn't even remotely clever or American.
Germany was idiotic in it's acceptance of migrants. Open-door policy is not what we want. We want vetting, we want people who work hard, and we want people who intend to become citizens.
Ah, now you're even playing the "She's a woman. If you disagree with her, it's because you don't like women." card. How embarrassing. I would vote for a woman who was qualified and didn't do everything I mentioned here. Your comment above, quite honestly, is laughable slander.
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I was saying was "If you won't vote for Hillary -solely- because she's female, i don't want to talk to you because the conversation will go nowhere" I said IF you are a misogynist. I didn't say you were, and I didn't say that people who won't vote for her are misogynist. Read my words for what they are, and stop using fuzzy logic.
Who shared your values. Chopping off heads or installing Sharia Law wasn't one of those founding values. If I said tomorrow that you had to take into your home, random people who may or may not share your values, and that some of them were actually deadly to your way of life, would you do be happy with that? Of course you wouldn't.
I don't need people who share my values - in my opinion, that's stale and uninteresting. I want a thriving, diverse, melting-pot of world cultures... oh wait... we've been doing that for a couple hundred years. Let's keep up the good work!
Chopping off heads and installing Sharia Law isn't being Muslim. Now you're being prejudiced.
I don't want Isis here, but does that mean I have to be anti-muslim? anti-syrian? Who exactly are you talking about? All of these migrants? I believe all human beings deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are showing that you are quite sheltered in your perspective.
You're just here grandstanding and trying to look all nice. Where will you will be when the arms and legs start to fly. Where was your superiority when 49 gay people were massacred by someone whose family would never have been in the country under Trump. So superior with all those deaths on your hands. And you want more of it, because to you being sweet to every Tom, d*ck, and Harry—regardless of whether they may be deadly—makes YOU feel nice.
Again, a blanket statement. Deaths on my hands? Wow. Did I ever say that I was superior to anyone? Try to psychoanalyze yourself for a change. I would love to stoop to your level and call you a twat, but I forgive your self-justifying attitude because you're passionate and ignorant of who I am. You don't know me, and you don't know how I think or feel about Tom, d*ck, OR Harry. I'm a realist.
I must have said something that upset you. For someone who programs, you use an awful lot of fuzzy logic. (You mad, bro?)
And most of us are sick of people like you branding anyone with an opposing view as all of the above. I think I'm also going to have to report your post. You've definitely crossed the line. As all Leftists tend to do in debate.
I'm not branding anyone as such. You're using fuzzy logic to come to broad generalizations about what I'm saying. You must have thought it was directed towards you, but it was not. I said I was sick of things that make complete sense to be sick of. How did I cross the line? I never said YOU were any of those things. What would you even be able to report me for? This is the off-topic board... lol. I never said anyone here were those things. I just said I was sick of it. I was actually referencing the 'anti-migrant' mentality - you know... the Skittles argument. There's a LOT of nationalism disguised as patriotism here in the USA, and I can't stand it.
You actually have an interesting voice in the Trump crowd that's caused me to think - but your response to my post was full of personally directed attacks and a lack of proof/information to back up your claims. Talk about ad hominem.
She's done a terrible job so far, so I wouldn't bet on it. But since you ignore, or lie, or defend anything she does as "ordinary", no doubt you will believe that. If I step in dog strawberries and then pretend it's chocolate, I can do that too. Anyone can.
I don't think she's done a terrible job, but at least she's already made some serious mistakes and had to answer for them in the eyes of the public. Hopefully she learns from them and doesn't just repeat all of it all over again.
The only theme I am getting from you is hate.
I don't like Trump as a politician and don't want him to be president. I don't hate the man at all. I just think he's not smart enough for the position and an overall d*ck. Actually, I don't really get that 'hateful' feeling from most Hillary supporters even if they don't like Trump -- they're just sick of him. The real 'hate' i see comes from the Anti-Trumps and the extremist Trump worshipers.
I do. And I'm talking about your entire sorry post.
More personal attacks? Man, DLPB -- I love Reunion, Anxious Hearts, RaW, and all of the other work you do, but you're being a serious jerkwad. Someone needs some nooky.
Ad hominem it up, buddy.
I'm reluctantly voting Hillary because all of the other candidates policies are incredibly unrealistic.
Either way, both main candidates are going to hand us over to the banks.
Have a great day, everyone
Love you all.