2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

There... fixed that for you. And yes, I agree.

But it's obvious Trump isn't politically savvy in his speeches, and should realize the media will twist and turn any comment he might say, that could be misconstrued against him, into the newest and biggest outrage of the century.

Oh, how I miss the good old days with binders full of women. :P

In fairness, very little of what Trump has said is open for interpretation. It's blunt, brash and idiotic. You earlier said it was fair game to attack the Khan family. He implied the mother was being silenced cause she's a Muslim, lost on when such racism became fair game.....

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The presidential Executive Orders issued by presidents are numbered. Which EO numbers support your point? Please list them, or your argument is without merit.

Who died and left you boss?

I provided this link already. But I'll do it again for you. That is the absolute best merit there is regarding his executive actions against our immigration laws.

https://www.rt.com/usa/347977-scotus-tie-immigration-deportation/

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Do you happen to know if the media has gone through this kind of effort as of yet, regarding what Trump said?

I am pretty sure they just replay what Trump says. Not much else seems to be required to discredit the man.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

I can see the new Clinton campaign slogan, now... 'Sure, Hillary is corrupt and a liar, but at least she's not nuts.' :P

It'd work too you know.

LostinKildare

Several months ago, Saudi Prince Alwaleed slapped down Trump in a tweet, reminding him that he'd bailed him out twice already, did he need another?

https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfwhttps://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Background:

Quartz: “Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. (Quartz, 12/7/15; 12/9/15)

CBS News: “Trump Has Been Partnering With Arab Investors For Years” And Is “Actively Looking” At Business Opportunities In “Abu Dhabi, Qatar And Saudi Arabia.” CBS News reported that there is a “Trump Tower complex in Baku, Azerbaijan, and a resort under construction in Bali, Indonesia, to be managed as a Trump-branded property.” The article also quoted Ivanka Trump saying “that in addition to Dubai, the Trump Organization was actively looking ‘at multiple business opportunities’ in Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” (CBS News, 12/9/15)

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/15/fox-overlooks-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures-while-hyping-his-clinton-foundation-criticism/210974

Trump has gotten plenty of money from Saudis. It's just another case of him being a YUUUUGE hypocrite, and his low-information followers being too lazy to Google "Trump+Saudi+business"

Billy86

LostinKildare wrote: »

Trump has gotten plenty of money from Saudis. It's just another case of him being a YUUUUGE hypocrite, and his low-information followers being too lazy to Google "Trump+Saudi+business"

What is the Trump fan response going to be?

1. "Oh, that's different! And he was right to!"
2. "Lalala I can't hear you lalala!"
3. "BUT BUT BUT... BUT HILLARY!"

I'm not even trying to be flippant or anything here, because it will be one of those three, if not a combination of them.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Brian, tell you what. I won't call you a liar here. I'll just quote some of your posts you are likely referring to, for a bit of context, and ask that you support them - with hard evidence and sources where required.



In reference to perhaps the biggest flip flopper in US presidential history, with zero history to go by, who has I believe the lowest 'truth' levels among fact checkers of anyone to ever run for US president.



This when trying to say Trump's 'ban all Muslims' comment was only talking about Jihadists.



This while discussing DONALD TRUMP'S statement on banning all Muslims. Note: I am not Donald Trump.



This in response to Trump's statement that explicitly called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". That is a 100% verbatim quote from Trump's official statement - not even an off the cuff comment.



This also about Trump's official statement that explicitly calls for banning all MUSLIMS.



This also in response to Trump's official statement that explicilty called for a "total and complete shutdown on all MUSLIMS"


And this again in response to Trump's explicit call for a "total and complete shutdown on all MUSLIMS"



This again in reference to Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown on all MUSLIMS"



This after it was repeatedly pointed out to you that the quotes from Trump about a "total and complete shutdown on all MUSLIMS" was taken verbatim from his official statement on his official website.


This after it was repeatedly pointed out to you that DonaldJTrump.com is not 'a news site' and is the official website of Donald J. Trump.


Now, Brian, I don't want to accuse you of speaking out both sides of your mouth. So I'll just quote you instead.



Ok Brian, what happened you your line about it only being a ban on Jihadists? Are you saying two completely different, contradictory things, both of which are somehow true?



Since you're claiming this is true, I await your official Democratic Party supporting documentation.



Yeah, you really should link us to those official Democratic Party documents that show they will let all 1bn+ Muslims and 120mn Mexicans in without any vetting.



I also look forward to you explaining this...

...






I look forward to your supporting reputable source for this, too.



I don't think that I ever did get to ask you to supply a reputable link to this? It's a pretty bold statement...



This one is just a fantastic inaccuracy I must have missed - "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.


1791 First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You again did you know post 9/11 millions of Americans were told to believe that the enemy of America came from the 1 billion Muslims that live around the world. When you start painting an entire religion as enemies of America it is near impossible to detract yourself from the views you take. The American & international media unleashed a tirade of insinuations against Muslims across the world. When the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started those soldiers knew they were fighting Muslim terrorists known as Jihadists. Trump does not hide away from the dangers posed by these Jihadists unlike some. Previous administrations have aided and abetted these groups and are complicit and certainly involved with dangerous Islamic clerics.

Amerika

And Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, took lots of money from foreign governments

Tenerife Island government $25,000 to $50,000
Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah $25,000 to $50,000
Government of Jamaica $50,000 to $100,000
Kingdom of Bahrain $50,000 to $100,000
Federal Republic of Germany $100,000 to $250,000
Embassy of Algeria $250,000 to $500,000
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada $250,000 to $500,000
Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office $500,000 to $1,000,000
State of Qatar $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Government of Brunei Darussalam $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Sultanate of Oman $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
United Arab Emirates $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
UK Department for International Development $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Commonwealth of Australia $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Government of the Netherlands $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
State of Kuwait $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Australian Agency for International Development $10,000,000 to $25,000,000
Government of Norway $10,000,000 to $25,000,000
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia $10,000,000 to $25,000,000

My, that’s a lot of favors owed, isn’t it?

And we shouldn't forget all the millions her and Bill got for several paid speeches.

KingBrian2

RobertKK wrote: »

It helped having Kerry for the last two years of the Iran deal, given he has not said he would obliterate the Iranians.
I think the west would be better if we had the Shia Muslims as our allies, Trump is towing the Iran line too over the money the US gave Iran, but that money is better going to Iran than the billions in weapons/fighter jets that have been sold to the Saudis who are responsible for a lot of ills in the world.
All the terrorists who seem to be attacking the west seem to be radicalised Sunni Muslims.
Not the Shia Muslims.

I also feel the West and whether that was Democrat or Republic in the US, they should have placed sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for their roles in making Pakistan a country with nuclear weapons. The Saudis for financing it and Pakistan for the nuclear bombs.

One thing Trump has done which I admire is he has called out Saudi Arabia and it's role in sponsoring terrorism.
This is another reason why I have a problem with the Clinton foundation and it accepting money from the Saudis,
The DNC convention, it had a lot about 9/11, no Charles Schumer who said after reading a congress report on 911: "Preliminary readings show that there may well have been Saudi involvement in the terror of 9/11 both in the Saudi government and within the Saudi country, within Saudi Arabia,"

The Clinton foundation accepts $25 million from the Saudis and Hillary then as Secretary of State sells Saudi Arabia fighter jets and military equipment totaling $29.4 billion.
If I was Trump I would use all this against Hillary Clinton. Hillary seems to have her fingers stuck in many pies, one hand with the victims of 9/11, the other hand with fingers accepting millions in money for their foundation and signing off on arms deal to a country directly implicated in 9/11.
Is it any wonder her honesty and trustworthy figures are way worse than Trump.
I just don't get how you can have a convention and so much about what you did for the 9/11 victims, but sshhhh about being all one with the Saudis who are accused of being involved in 9/11.
I would have to side with Russia who do not view Saudi Arabia as an ally and with Trump on this who also accused the Saudis of being involved in 9/11.
Clinton has given the Saudis a free ride. There was talk that Obama's last visit to Saudi Arabia was more frosty. The Guardian described the meeting as being chilly with a mutual distrust of each other.

I think Obama has been more pragmatic than Hillary, I can admire Obama for learning from the Libya disaster.
I don't believe Hillary has learned anything.

The Saudi's don't have a monopoly on Islam, plenty of Muslim states America and the world can form alliances with. Saudi's made up the bulk of the attackers on 9/11. Nobody should be in any doubt the extreme interpretation of Islam these zealots have. The sooner Trump can distance America from these rotters the better for the world.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

And Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, took lots of money from foreign governments

Tenerife Island government $25,000 to $50,000
Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah $25,000 to $50,000
Government of Jamaica $50,000 to $100,000
Kingdom of Bahrain $50,000 to $100,000
Federal Republic of Germany $100,000 to $250,000
Embassy of Algeria $250,000 to $500,000
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada $250,000 to $500,000
Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office $500,000 to $1,000,000
State of Qatar $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Government of Brunei Darussalam $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Sultanate of Oman $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
United Arab Emirates $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
UK Department for International Development $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Commonwealth of Australia $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Government of the Netherlands $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
State of Kuwait $5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Australian Agency for International Development $10,000,000 to $25,000,000
Government of Norway $10,000,000 to $25,000,000
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia $10,000,000 to $25,000,000

My, that’s a lot of favors owed, isn’t it?

And we shouldn't forget all the millions her and Bill got for several paid speeches.

Billy86 wrote: »

What is the Trump fan response going to be?

1. "Oh, that's different! And he was right to!"
2. "Lalala I can't hear you lalala!"
3. "BUT BUT BUT... BUT HILLARY!"

I'm not even trying to be flippant or anything here, because it will be one of those three, if not a combination of them.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!

Amerika

More on the Clinton Foundation shenanigans while Hillary was Secretary of State... through recently released emails.

Read the article, but take note hidden at the very end…

"The Clinton Foundation was not part of the recent investigation into her private server; it was separate. The FBI went to Justice Department earlier this year asking for it to open a case into the foundation, but the public integrity unit declined. The Justice Department had looked into whether it should open a case on the foundation a year prior and found it didn't have sufficient evidence to do so."

So the DOJ blocked a Clinton Foundation probe. This election is rigged!

This should be the new badge for our Department of Justice in regards to Hillary Clinton.

LostinKildare

Amerika, did you know, before you read it here now, that Trump has been bailed out by the Saudi prince, and that he has many business interests in Saudi and other Gulf States? Indeed, the legally required FEC filings (not as good as tax returns, but something, at least) which Trump made months ago seem to indicate that he is planning more developments in Jeddah.

Trump has filed financial records with the Federal Election Commission, as is required of all presidential candidates.

And according to Associated Press, the financial disclosure appears to include information on a new business enterprise set up to operate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Four companies were incorporated by Mr Trump, which are related to the project.

In the disclosure, Donald Trump himself is listed as president and owner of companies called, THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor, and DT Jeddah Technical Services Advisor located in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e15_1463956141#yLC1JPxiQrAWx0P7.99

mjakes20

President Obama took in rakes of corporate donations, yet I don't see how it materially affected his policy making. Nothing annoys the banks more than the Dodd-Frank Act which spawns onerous regulation by the bucketload, and this President signed it into law.

Similarly, there's no greater bugbear of corporate America than the corporation tax regime stateside, which Obama has failed to reform, and in fact rendered more stringent by having his Treasury Department crack down on corporate inversions.

In Mark Halperin's book "Double Down" which recounts the 2012 election, there's an interesting anecdote that tells how the President boasted of not being able to name his top five fund-raisers.

It seems a stretch to me to believe that once Clinton assumes office, she will be squarely concerned with patronage for her various donors, both legitimate and nefarious, and leave aside her priorities on immigration, maternity leave, criminal justice reform etc.

Billy86

So, it turns out Trump is also accepting money from Saudis and is pretty cosy with them all in all.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Several months ago, Saudi Prince Alwaleed slapped down Trump in a tweet, reminding him that he'd bailed him out twice already, did he need another?

https://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfwhttps://twitter.com/Alwaleed_Talal/status/692790423010566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Background:

Quartz: “Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. (Quartz, 12/7/15; 12/9/15)

CBS News: “Trump Has Been Partnering With Arab Investors For Years” And Is “Actively Looking” At Business Opportunities In “Abu Dhabi, Qatar And Saudi Arabia.” CBS News reported that there is a “Trump Tower complex in Baku, Azerbaijan, and a resort under construction in Bali, Indonesia, to be managed as a Trump-branded property.” The article also quoted Ivanka Trump saying “that in addition to Dubai, the Trump Organization was actively looking ‘at multiple business opportunities’ in Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” (CBS News, 12/9/15)

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/15/fox-overlooks-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures-while-hyping-his-clinton-foundation-criticism/210974

Trump has gotten plenty of money from Saudis. It's just another case of him being a YUUUUGE hypocrite, and his low-information followers being too lazy to Google "Trump+Saudi+business"

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Amerika, did you know, before you read it here now, that Trump has been bailed out by the Saudi prince, and that he has many business interests in Saudi and other Gulf States? Indeed, the legally required FEC filings (not as good as tax returns, but something, at least) which Trump made months ago seem to indicate that he is planning more developments in Jeddah.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e15_1463956141#yLC1JPxiQrAWx0P7.99

I knew Trump has had many international dealings. What’s the point?

Thinking about you question, does it have to do with this statement... "Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump wrote on June 13, 2016. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!"?

So Trump had dealings with Saudi Arabia, where they profited from the deals. That the nature of business dealings. The question we should be asking is what did, or will, the Saudi’s get from giving all that money to Clinton?

Now if you’re alluding to hypocrisy, I’ve got to ask... Did Trump say anything similar to a calling on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate? If he did then he might also be guilty of hypocrisy.

Amerika

mjakes20 wrote: »

President Obama took in rakes of corporate donations, yet I don't see how it materially affected his policy making. Nothing annoys the banks more than the Dodd-Frank Act which spawns onerous regulation by the bucketload, and this President signed it into law.

Similarly, there's no greater bugbear of corporate America than the corporation tax regime stateside, which Obama has failed to reform, and in fact rendered more stringent by having his Treasury Department crack down on corporate inversions.

In Mark Halperin's book "Double Down" which recounts the 2012 election, there's an interesting anecdote that tells how the President boasted of not being able to name his top five fund-raisers.

It seems a stretch to me to believe that once Clinton assumes office, she will be squarely concerned with patronage for her various donors, both legitimate and nefarious, and leave aside her priorities on immigration, maternity leave, criminal justice reform etc.

Banks today are actually too bigger to fail then they were in 2008/2009. Clinton is the Wall Street and big business candidate. Once we see the transcript of her speeches we'll all know, but don't hold your breath. And now Obama wants banks to again give loans to people with weak credit. Will democrats never learn? And if we get into another crash, do you actually think Hillary will allow them to fail? No, they will once again be bailed out with taxpayer funds.

mjakes20

Amerika wrote: »

Banks today are actually too bigger to fail then they were in 2008/2009. Clinton is the Wall Street and big business candidate. Once we see the transcript of her speeches we'll all know, but don't hold your breath. And now Obama wants banks to again give loans to people with weak credit. Will democrats never learn? And if we get into another crash, do you actually think Hillary will allow them to fail? No, they will once again be bailed out with taxpayer funds.

Banks have had to buttress their capital ratios, meaning should they meet a deluge of unforeseen losses they can cover them, as well as create living wills involving "bail ins" where creditors bear the brunt of the bank's losses.

Also, I haven't heard Obama demand banks to begin firing out dodgy credit again, but I could be wrong.

Also the original architect of the 2008 bailout was Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and yeah the Democrats probably shouldn't allow the banks to fail, because following the efficient market guff the Republicans love to spout would mean letting them go bankrupt like they did in the 30's and engendering a Depression of similar proportions.

Amerika

mjakes20 wrote: »

Banks have had to buttress their capital ratios, meaning should they meet a deluge of unforeseen losses they can cover them, as well as create living wills involving "bail ins" where creditors bear the brunt of the bank's losses.

Also, I haven't heard Obama demand banks to begin firing out dodgy credit again, but I could be wrong.

Also the original architect of the 2008 bailout was Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and yeah the Democrats probably shouldn't allow the banks to fail, because following the efficient market guff the Republicans love to spout would mean letting them go bankrupt like they did in the 30's and engendering a Depression of similar proportions.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/12/obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-crash/

Just another thing our lovely media usually hides on page 8, and news reports ignore altogether because it could be potentially harmful to Obama and Democrats if everything goes south. I bet almost nobody knows about this.

And I disagreed with Bush on TARP, but wasn't his share only about $700 Billion of the committed $7.77 Trillion? And wasn't all of money doled out by Bush under TARP paid back with interest?

And reluctantly I agree that the banks shouldn't be allowed to fail, but Democrats keep spouting that they would not bail them out if they did, and now are forcing them to do things that would cause them to fail. And we know the Democrats are all talk and no action regarding the being tough on banks if they would fail.

KingBrian2

LostinKildare wrote: »

Amerika, did you know, before you read it here now, that Trump has been bailed out by the Saudi prince, and that he has many business interests in Saudi and other Gulf States? Indeed, the legally required FEC filings (not as good as tax returns, but something, at least) which Trump made months ago seem to indicate that he is planning more developments in Jeddah.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e15_1463956141#yLC1JPxiQrAWx0P7.99

Yeah well big friends of the Democrats are Israeli's. Many Jews that condone Israel back Hillary to win whereas Bernie Sanders was the only one on the Democratic side who actually stood up against corporate interests that were denying Palestinians their right to trade so kind of debunks the whole Hillary is kind to Muslims.:rolleyes:

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

I knew Trump has had many international dealings. What’s the point?

........

Now if you’re alluding to hypocrisy, I’ve got to ask... Did Trump say anything similar to a calling on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate? If he did then he might also be guilty of hypocrisy.

Riiight. No hypocrisy here at all, at all:

Donald Trump is casting Hillary Clinton as an enemy of the LGBT community and women, using her family foundation's acceptance of contributions from Middle Eastern countries with widely reported human rights abuses to hit his 2016 presidential rival on the campaign trail. . . . .

"She's no friend of women and she's no friend of LGBT Americans. No friend. Believe me," he said Tuesday in Greensboro, North Carolina, while repeating his push for a ban on Muslims traveling into the United States.

"How can you be a friend when you take many, many millions, tens of millions of dollars, $25 million from one country they think?" Trump said. "How can you be a friend when these countries are oppressive to LGBT, when they're oppressive to everybody? How can you be a friend?" . . . . .

What Trump hasn't mentioned on the campaign trail: He, too, has financial ties to some of the same countries. From licensing his name to a golf club in Dubai to leasing his suburban New York estate to former Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi, Trump has launched several new business ventures connected to Middle Eastern countries since 2000. . . . .

Trump insisted his business ties shouldn't be compared to the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign donations.

"It's much different when she is selling our country down the tubes with her bad judgment and corrupt thought process," he told CNN in a statement. "I am an international businessman with worldwide relationships and tremendous success and I'm going to do for the country what I did for my business." . . . . .

He made his first real estate venture into the Middle East in 2005, when he licensed his name to United Arab Emirates developer Nahkeel LLC, controlled by Dubai's crown prince, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum for a massive $400 million hotel project. He was accused in 2006 of enslaving tens of thousands of boys to use as camel jockeys over three decades.

"I am delighted to invest, manage and sell this project on what is clearly the best location in Dubai," Trump said in a statement when the project was announced.. . . . .

In 2012, Trump signed a licensing deal worth $2.5 million, plus another $323,000 in management fees with Garant Holding over a hotel in Azerbaijan, along the Caspian Sea, according to his personal financial disclosure. It would be, he promised in a 2014 news release, "among the finest in the world."

Garant's chairman is Anar Mammadov, a 35-year-old billionaire whose family is part of the country's leadership. The country was identified as the worst place to be gay in Europe by the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Index, which cited frequent hate crimes. . . .

He also has business ties to Indonesia -- where gay sex is punishable by public caning, a fine of $37,400 and more than eight years of prison time. . . .

Trump has also dealt with Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Libya, within the United States.

In 2001, he sold units in his Trump World Tower in New York City to Saudi Arabia's government.

In discussing the United States' military relationship with Saudi Arabia at a May 19 fundraiser for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Trump bragged about apartment deals with Saudi Arabians.

"I have so many friends there, Saudis, they buy my apartments, you wouldn't believe it, OK?" Trump said, to laughter from the crowd. "Now look, they're great, they're all great," he said. . . . .

[Trump] lambasted Clinton for her family foundation's acceptance of donations from Saudi Arabia's government again Wednesday in Atlanta, and then Thursday night at a fundraiser in Dallas.

"They enslave women. As far as gays are concerned, OK, think of it -- they throw gays off buildings. They kill them. Countries that contribute to her foundation," Trump said. "And she should give all that money back to all these countries."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/17/politics/donald-trump-middle-east-business-ties-clinton-lgbt/


So . . . in summary, it's satanic to accept donations from these horrible, horrible countries for charitable purposes, but it's A-OK to dirty your hands if the purpose is to personally enrich yourself (and them). Nice.


EDIT: Damn, I cut off that long quote just too soon! I love this line:

He added: "And you know what? LGBT is starting to like Donald Trump very much. Starting to like Donald Trump very, very much, lately."

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

http://nypost.com/2016/03/12/obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-crash/

Just a quick reminder since Trump fans like to complain wso much about the (proven to be unfounded) 'mass media conspiracy bias thingy'

New York Post Openly Endorses Donald Trump
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/04/new-york-post-endorses-donald-trump-221999
http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/the-post-endorses-donald-trump/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Safe spaces, safe spaces...

mjakes20

Amerika wrote: »

Just another thing our lovely media usually hides on page 8, and news reports ignore altogether because it could be potentially harmful to Obama and Democrats if everything goes south. I bet almost nobody knows about this.

And I disagreed with Bush on TARP, but wasn't his share only about $700 Billion of the committed $7.77 Trillion? And wasn't all of money doled out by Bush under TARP paid back with interest?

And reluctantly I agree that the banks shouldn't be allowed to fail, but Democrats keep spouting that they would not bail them out if they did, and now are forcing them to do things that would cause them to fail. And we know the Democrats are all talk and no action regarding the being tough on banks.

I have to admit, that article is a little disconcerting. I did know house prices had been rising at a steady clip for years, but that wages had remained flat (until last quarter at least), but I never put two and two together.

Bush authorised $700 billion for TARP, which Dodd-Frank pared back to $475 billion, but TARP was separate from the emergency lending conducted by the Fed which, in March 2009, did total $7.77 trillion if all guarantees and lending limits are included.

I'll still give Hillary the benefit of the doubt re banking reform. For all Trump's talk of attacking ' special interests', his tried and tested tactic of litigation into submission somehow wouldn't work I don't think...

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Riiight. No hypocrisy here at all, at all:



So . . . in summary, it's satanic to accept donations from these horrible, horrible countries for charitable purposes, but it's A-OK if the purpose is to personally enrich yourself. Nice.

Business dealings are quite different than donations to charitable slush funds of potentially next presidents of the US. Business dealing get returns and expectations spelled out. The Clinton Foundation actually paid very little of the money they took in to actually charities. Anybody with any common sense should be asking what do these donors expect when, if they were really concerned with helping charities, their many millions would have been better spent with charitable foundations that actually spent most of their money on charities. I think we all know the reason... it's okay, you can admit it, at least to yourself.

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

Business dealings are quite different than donations to charitable slush funds of potentially next presidents of the US. Business dealing get returns and expectations spelled out. The Clinton Foundation actually paid very little of the money they took in to actually charities. Anybody with any common sense should be asking what do these donors expect when, if they were really concerned with helping charities, their many millions would have been better spent with charitable foundations that actually spent most of their money on charities.

You are correct that business dealings are quite different than donations to charity.

The rest you say there is completely false.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

You are correct that business dealings are quite different than donations to charity.

The rest you say there is completely false.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

I’ve spoke about FactCheck before and their eight employees. You can go back and search for it if you'd like. They play loosey goosey with their “facts and figures” when it comes to the Left to put in a favorable light, and are rather harsh on the Right.

Who is checking the factcheckers? Nobody!

I trust this. (They have over ten people working for them. )
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve spoke about FactCheck before and their eight employees. You can go back and search for it if you'd like. They play loosey goosey with their “facts and figures” when it comes to the Left to put in a favorable light, and are rather harsh on the Right.

Who is checking the factcheckers? Nobody!

I trust this. (They have over ten people working for them. )
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

But Amerika even if you disagree with FactCheck in general you can't dismiss the comments of all the Charity watchdogs that they quote .

This is the very same point you yourself were making yesterday (I think) in relation to Breitbart or some similar source .

And all the Charity watchdogs report favourably on them .

Billy86

Let me guess, the charity watchdogs are in on the grand conspiracy too? Much like last time with the "but but but... But Hillary!" but, I am not trying to be flippant. I genuinely expect this to be the most likely answer.

Also to add: the donald trump endorsing (as in they literally endorsed the guy) safe space that is the NY Post is full of crap. Here is exactly try what Charity Navigator ha e to say on the Clinton foundation....

"We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model."

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

They play loosey goosey with their “facts and figures” when it comes to the Left to put in a favorable light, and are rather harsh on the Right.

Who is checking the factcheckers? Nobody!

Presumably you need a Conservafactcheckopedia, to offer "fair and balanced" counterpoint to reality's pro-liberal bias.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

And to prove the point, Obama, through executive orders, has directed federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, our immigration laws.

Apparently, then, this is a reference to Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. Presumably Amerika was just as shocked -- simply shocked! -- by the Ford, Reagan, and Bush1's respective introduction and expanded use of this "ignoring our immigration laws" mechanism.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

I can see the new Clinton campaign slogan, now... 'Sure, Hillary is corrupt and a liar, but at least she's not nuts.' :P

I've already heard this election compared to one previous Italian (I think) one, which ended up being characterised as "vote for the crook, and not the fascist". Similar thinking might well apply here. Well, aside from Trump financial malfeasance and "pants on fire" status being far in excess of any failings on Clinton's part. Over and above the naked hate and bigotry.