Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Pangean]

Tsk Tsk. I smell some shenanigans.

[Breccia]

has he been found guilty of any crime which has made the judge or jury even consider jail time? Hillary deserves to stand trial for which the punishment could very well lead to jail time.

Sigh...double standard. I could just as easily say Trump deserves to stand trial for the crimes he's committed, such as intentionally hiring a Russian agent on his campaign, then begging Russia to hack the DNC. Or cheating on his taxes. Or lying on the financial disclosure forms required to fill out and make public before running for president (TEN MILLION DOLLARS). Or committing fraud at Trump U. Or bribing district attorneys in multiple states. Or inciting violence at his own campaign rallies.

The fact is, you can't say "your candidate is a crook because they need to stand trial and be found guilty, while mine isn't a crook because they haven't been found guilty yet". Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. Except for the part where Clinton is no longer under federal investigation, but Trump still is about a dozen times (those audits really add up!), you have no basis of calling either candidate a "crook" as neither has been convicted in a criminal court.

Although Trump has lost a lot of lawsuits brought by the state and federal governments. I posted on that a few pages back.

- - - Updated - - -

Tsk Tsk. I smell some shenanigans.

A campaign can legally pay due rent, even at the property owned by the candidate. It's legal. Jacking up the rates is bullshit, and he should be shamed for it, but it's legal.

Question: Did Trump officially change all the money he loaned to his campaign into non-returned donations? Or could he still technically pay his own personal money back with funds from his follower's donations, and make a profit?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually if the election was purely on who the public thinks can handle it better, according to the polling, Trump would win handily.

I'd like to see those results after the debates. Assuming Trump doesn't flake out on them, of course. Actually, even then.

[akris15]

Tsk Tsk. I smell some shenanigans.

I literally laughed out loud at this...thank you

[Thepersona]

Bloomberg. Is all I needed to know to not waste my time reading that link. Actually if the election was purely on who the public thinks can handle it better, according to the polling, Trump would win handily. But there is more to being a good president than just the economy issues. Which is why Hillary is leading all the acceptable polls. But it is also interesting that the economy tops the list of concerns of Americans.

err... the public considers that clinton can handle the economy better than trump... at least the public who doesnt come from the republican base

[Ghostpanther]

Sigh...double standard. I could just as easily say Trump deserves to stand trial for the crimes he's committed, such as intentionally hiring a Russian agent on his campaign, then begging Russia to hack the DNC. Or cheating on his taxes. Or lying on the financial disclosure forms required to fill out and make public before running for president (TEN MILLION DOLLARS). Or committing fraud at Trump U. Or bribing district attorneys in multiple states. Or inciting violence at his own campaign rallies.

The fact is, you can't say "your candidate is a crook because they need to stand trial and be found guilty, while mine isn't a crook because they haven't been found guilty yet". Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. Except for the part where Clinton is no longer under federal investigation, but Trump still is about a dozen times (those audits really add up!), you have no basis of calling either candidate a "crook" as neither has been convicted in a criminal court.

Although Trump has lost a lot of lawsuits brought by the state and federal governments. I posted on that a few pages back.

- - - Updated - - -



A campaign can legally pay due rent, even at the property owned by the candidate. It's legal. Jacking up the rates is bullshit, and he should be shamed for it, but it's legal.

Question: Did Trump officially change all the money he loaned to his campaign into non-returned donations? Or could he still technically pay his own personal money back with funds from his follower's donations, and make a profit?

I do not think the comparison to what Trump has done to what Hillary has done is equal. What she did was extremely reckless in handling classified information ( just about the same words the FBI Director used during the hearing ) which could have possibly been compromised. This information was classfied for good reasons and deals with National Security. A much more serous issue.

Now granted the FBI refused to recommend charges be brought forth. You can ether accept that as acceptable or like myself and millions of other Americans, not accept it. The evidence from his testimony made it very clear to me they were strong enough she should have been charged with a crime. This is not just my opinion, but one shared by many who are more well versed in matters of the law than you or I am.

Trump has lost a lot of lawsuits. In comparison to what? How many has he had over the years? And how many has he won? Babe Ruth led the league in strike outs. But also led in home runs. :P

[Pangean]

A campaign can legally pay due rent, even at the property owned by the candidate. It's legal. Jacking up the rates is bullshit, and he should be shamed for it, but it's legal.

Question: Did Trump officially change all the money he loaned to his campaign into non-returned donations? Or could he still technically pay his own personal money back with funds from his follower's donations, and make a profit?

Not so sure it's legal. The campaign must pay the going rate for the space. If that going rate was 35k in March then it's still 35k in July. I am going to dig into this some more tomorrow on the legality. I imagine his campaign donors are not going to be too happy about this regardless of it's legality.

He supposedly did convert the loans to donations so can't be paid back from campaign funds. But like this scam on the rent I am sure he will find ways to get at least some of it back.

[Ghostpanther]

err... the public considers that clinton can handle the economy better than trump... at least the public who doesnt come from the republican base

Hehe. You do know the Republican public base is still a part of the American public? the public is comprised of all the people no matter what their political affiliation is. Hillary leads in several important issues even if she is trailing in the handling of the economy. Such as social and foreign relations to name two. There are others.

[Thepersona]

Hehe. You do know the Republican public base is still a part of the American public? the public is comprised of all the people no matter what their political affiliation is. Hillary leads in several important issues even if she is trailing in the handling of the economy. Such as social and foreign relations to name two. There are others.

you did not understand what i said, right?

[Breccia]

Trump has lost a lot of lawsuits. In comparison to what? How many has he had over the years? And how many has he won? Babe Ruth led the league in strike outs. But also led in home runs. :P

How many times did Babe Ruth get up to the plate, look at the pitcher, and say "fuck it, I won't go up against this guy, I'll strike out" and head back to the dugout? Because Trump's done that dozens upon dozens of times. Trump has settled more lawsuits against him than he's successfully defended, and he's had hundreds of his own lawsuits/countersuits thrown out of court.

But just to deal with the overall concept: as posted, Trump's been dragged to court and lost 38 times. He's 70. That means, since he was trusted with any kind of authority, he's lost at least one lawsuit against him every two years. As listed, some of them were brought by state and federal governments. Is this really a redeeming feature? Go back and re-read what he's been brought to court for, and lost. Are these Presidential features, in your eyes?

Quite frankly, when you downplay the comparison between what they've been accused of, you're failing at a major point of context. Trump has never been in a position where he could have leaked classified info. (Well, maybe he told Manafort a few things.) He's never been trusted with governmental authority. What authority he has had, in running his businesses, has been, at best, mediocre. He lost money running casinos. He let his brand go bankrupt multiple times, and let his businesses just die far more times. He cheated on his wife. He's cheated on his taxes. He's lied about how much money he earned. Everything he's done, he's failed at in the eyes of the law literally dozens of times. (And settled a ton more) Within his own world, within Trump's own context, basically proportionally, Trump's lost far more times, and far more seriously (in context) than Clinton at her worst.

Why would you give the person who's failed so many times at what he's had so far, more power to fail more spectacularly? Technically, I haven't risked top secret information either. Should I be president?

- - - Updated - - -

Not so sure it's legal. The campaign must pay the going rate for the space.

Oh. Ouch. Well, throw it in the pile, I guess.

[Deja Thoris]

Not so sure it's legal. The campaign must pay the going rate for the space. If that going rate was 35k in March then it's still 35k in July. I am going to dig into this some more tomorrow on the legality. I imagine his campaign donors are not going to be too happy about this regardless of it's legality.

He supposedly did convert the loans to donations so can't be paid back from campaign funds. But like this scam on the rent I am sure he will find ways to get at least some of it back.

We all know the value of his stuff is based on "feelings". So he obviously set the new rate when he was having a good day.

[Ghostpanther]

you did not understand what i said, right?

Lol. I thought I did. Apologies if I misunderstood. So what did you mean?

- - - Updated - - -

How many times did Babe Ruth get up to the plate, look at the pitcher, and say "fuck it, I won't go up against this guy, I'll strike out" and head back to the dugout? Because Trump's done that dozens upon dozens of times. Trump has settled more lawsuits against him than he's successfully defended, and he's had hundreds of his own lawsuits/countersuits thrown out of court.

But just to deal with the overall concept: as posted, Trump's been dragged to court and lost 38 times. He's 70. That means, since he was trusted with any kind of authority, he's lost at least one lawsuit against him every two years. As listed, some of them were brought by state and federal governments. Is this really a redeeming feature? Go back and re-read what he's been brought to court for, and lost. Are these Presidential features, in your eyes?

Quite frankly, when you downplay the comparison between what they've been accused of, you're failing at a major point of context. Trump has never been in a position where he could have leaked classified info. (Well, maybe he told Manafort a few things.) He's never been trusted with governmental authority. What authority he has had, in running his businesses, has been, at best, mediocre. He lost money running casinos. He let his brand go bankrupt multiple times, and let his businesses just die far more times. He cheated on his wife. He's cheated on his taxes. He's lied about how much money he earned. Everything he's done, he's failed at in the eyes of the law literally dozens of times. (And settled a ton more) Within his own world, within Trump's own context, basically proportionally, Trump's lost far more times, and far more seriously (in context) than Clinton at her worst.

Why would you give the person who's failed so many times at what he's had so far, more power to fail more spectacularly? Technically, I haven't risked top secret information either. Should I be president?

- - - Updated - - -

So he has lost 38 times out of hundreds he has won ( having a law suit brought against you and then having it thrown out, is a win ) pretty damn good batting average I would say.

So we know what Hillary will do from her past record. With Trump, only time will tell. But at this point, we may never find out ether.

You may make a great President. Would have to know a lot more about you and what your stances are.

[Thepersona]

Lol. I thought I did. Apologies if I misunderstood. So what did you mean?

that yeah, part of the public (being the republican base) agrees to your point, but the rest (at least in majority) doesnt think so, and that is a big problem for trump.

[Deleted]

Is there a show or something that wraps up weekly "trump flames clinton" stuff?

[Vanyali]

So he has lost 38 times out of hundreds he has won ( having a law suit brought against you and then having it thrown out, is a win ) pretty damn good batting average I would say.

You misread - he's lost 38 straight-out (with others settled) that were brought against him, while the suits HE filed were thrown out. Not those filed against him.

[Merkava]

How many times did Babe Ruth get up to the plate, look at the pitcher, and say "fuck it, I won't go up against this guy, I'll strike out" and head back to the dugout? Because Trump's done that dozens upon dozens of times. Trump has settled more lawsuits against him than he's successfully defended, and he's had hundreds of his own lawsuits/countersuits thrown out of court.

But just to deal with the overall concept: as posted, Trump's been dragged to court and lost 38 times. He's 70. That means, since he was trusted with any kind of authority, he's lost at least one lawsuit against him every two years. As listed, some of them were brought by state and federal governments. Is this really a redeeming feature? Go back and re-read what he's been brought to court for, and lost. Are these Presidential features, in your eyes?

Quite frankly, when you downplay the comparison between what they've been accused of, you're failing at a major point of context. Trump has never been in a position where he could have leaked classified info. (Well, maybe he told Manafort a few things.) He's never been trusted with governmental authority. What authority he has had, in running his businesses, has been, at best, mediocre. He lost money running casinos. He let his brand go bankrupt multiple times, and let his businesses just die far more times. He cheated on his wife. He's cheated on his taxes. He's lied about how much money he earned. Everything he's done, he's failed at in the eyes of the law literally dozens of times. (And settled a ton more) Within his own world, within Trump's own context, basically proportionally, Trump's lost far more times, and far more seriously (in context) than Clinton at her worst.

Why would you give the person who's failed so many times at what he's had so far, more power to fail more spectacularly? Technically, I haven't risked top secret information either. Should I be president?

I think everyone of those things could be forgiven, or overlooked if he had some type of experience or talent that he could bring to bear on the problems facing the country, or if there was some type of policy that he espoused that actually made sense. You could excuse away the lawsuits by saying something like, "well every real estate tycoon who runs several multi million dollar properties is going to have some lawsuits, if he didn't also have the most dysfunctional relationship with his own ignorance ever seen in a major party candidate. You could excuse his personal failings in his marriages, if he didn't also put proudly on display the very same hubris, arrogance, and fickle carelessness that must have caused the turmoil in his private life. You could excuse the tax cheating, hell almost everyone does, and the lying about his personal finances, if he didn't also espouse disastrous economic policies like letting the US default on it's debt.

To answer the question at the end of your excellent post; There is no reason. Beyond, perhaps just sheer hatred of the Clintons. But then, that hatred would have to be so encompassing as to almost border on mental illness, at least in my inexpert opinion.

[Stormspellz]

Lol. I thought I did. Apologies if I misunderstood. So what did you mean?

- - - Updated - - -



So he has lost 38 times out of hundreds he has won ( having a law suit brought against you and then having it thrown out, is a win ) pretty damn good batting average I would say.

So we know what Hillary will do from her past record. With Trump, only time will tell. But at this point, we may never find out ether.

You may make a great President. Would have to know a lot more about you and what your stances are.

you misunderstand he's had hundreds of suits he brought to court thrown out, like him suing bill maher or jon stewert and lost when disgruntled business partners sue for false promises

[Pangean]

Trump and his conspiracy theories aren't just hurting his campaign they are threatening the whole election process as his gullible true believers swallows up his nonsense and believes it.

Donald Trump Cues Up Another Conspiracy

Donald Trump is calling for volunteers to watch the polls in November, and he is making no bones about why.

“Help me stop Crooked Hillary from rigging this election!” says the application form on his campaign website.

There are so many lies and delusions flowing daily from the Trump campaign that it’s easy to miss the times when the Republican nominee is being not just ludicrous, but dangerous. This is one.

Mr. Trump has seized on the charge that Hillary Clinton plans to win by cheating. He has said it before, but he keeps on saying it. This looks like pre-emptive face-saving, of course — getting an excuse ready if he loses badly. But it’s worse than that.

Mr. Trump has been attacking recent court decisions striking down utterly unjustified state voter-identification laws that are attempts by Republican legislatures to hinder black and Latino voters, who tend to vote Democratic. The crime the laws were meant to prevent — voting by fraudulent voters with fake IDs — is a Republican myth, concocted for partisan reasons. There is no evidence that such fraud exists on any scale, only a handful of isolated instances.

Mr. Trump says otherwise. He is accusing the government he wants to lead of being both victim and perpetrator of a vast conspiracy. And he is setting the stage for an upwelling of right-wing outrage, cuing up a crisis of electoral legitimacy. If Mrs. Clinton wins, get ready for at least four years, maybe eight, of the catcalls and loathing that plagued President Obama’s two terms.

A more immediate concern is what happens on Nov. 8, when squads of Trump volunteers fan out to defend their candidate’s presumed victory. It does not seem far-fetched to expect that signatures will be pointlessly challenged and citizens intimidated and inconvenienced, that the ruckus of the Trump campaign will spread to polling places around the country.

The anger Mr. Trump is whipping up is not a small phenomenon. A Pew Research Center poll this month found that an amazing 30 percent of registered voters who support Mr. Trump have “little or no confidence” that their own vote will be counted accurately. Only 11 percent of Trump supporters believe that votes across the country will be accurately counted.

You may ask yourself: Well, how did we get here?

Mr. Trump did not invent paranoia; he did not create the Republican meme of fraudulent minority voting. He just took it — as he so often does — to an extreme. Senator John McCain made similar warnings in 2008, and murmurings of cheating go back at least to 2000, a close national election, botched in Florida, decided for George W. Bush by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. And long before Mr. Trump entered the presidential race, Republican legislators were busy passing voter ID laws based on the fallacy of widespread fraud.

Mr. Trump’s brain is a pincushion for conspiracy theories, so maybe it’s no surprise that he thinks the Clinton campaign will be sending African-Americans and foreigners into booths across the country to fake their votes over and over, millions of times.

Now, more than ever, the country needs responsible political leaders and the courts to defend and expand voting rights, rather than sitting silently while Mr. Trump further demolishes public confidence in the foundations of our government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Breccia]

So he has lost 38 times out of hundreds he has won ( having a law suit brought against you and then having it thrown out, is a win ) pretty damn good batting average I would say.

First of all, I said his OWN lawsuits/countersuits were thrown out. He's had some against him tossed too, sure, but he frequently files stupid suits, like that time he sued a city for $25 million dollars for fining him. That was thrown out. That's not even counted as one of his 38 losses.

Plus, the comparison to a batting average isn't one you should stick with. Isn't 0.250 a pretty good average? Now, put that in this context. Isn't someone who wins one out of four lawsuits doing horribly horribly badly? A law-abiding, intelligent businessman who intends to run for president, losing lawsuits every other year and settling a ton more is not something to be proud of!

So we know what Hillary will do from her past record. With Trump, only time will tell.

No! No, you missed the point entirely! We know Trump's past record. The list of failed businesses, the list of state and federal lawsuits he lost and/or settled rather than lose, the bankruptcies, the divorces, and how he handled his entire campaign. The man isn't orange, he's lit by the glow of the bridges he's burned to both parties of government, South America, NATO/EU, China, and even his former supporters like Chris Christie. You've seen his record. It's right fucking there. The only thing he has is that he claims he's successful, but won't even bother to prove it by releasing his tax returns. All you have is his word, the word of someone who won lie of the year for his entire 2015 campaign. Which wasn't even the half of it, anymore.

(pant pant pant)

Look. You seem like a reasonable person. But don't say things like "we don't know Trump's record". You do. You read this thread. You've seen piles upon piles of his record, and a lot of it is both provably true, and highly unflattering. This time last year, he couldn't even get a loan in this country, and he was most famous for being a game show host with sagging ratings. Just go back to that time. Take away all the promises he's made, all the things he's said he wants to do. Just look back in the news till pre-bid announcement. What, in the actual life of Trump, do you honestly think makes him qualified for the President of the United States?

Because if he's not qualified, his stance on the issues means exactly diddly-dick.

[mvaliz]

So we know what Hillary will do from her past record. With Trump, only time will tell.

If Charles Manson was running for president, would you say he has no past record politically speaking and thus we shouldn't judge him? Hell, knowing you and the current crop of Republicans - you'd argue the case he'd make a good leader as he clearly was able to convince normal people to assasinate others and to follow him in his cult! :P

Also, what's wrong with Hillary's Past Record? We've celebrated heroes with far FAR shadier past records than Hillary's email scandals (Winston Churchill comes to mind.)

[Ripster42]

Question: Did Trump officially change all the money he loaned to his campaign into non-returned donations? Or could he still technically pay his own personal money back with funds from his follower's donations, and make a profit?

Yes. I'm not going to bother linking it for the 5th time, but ya, he forgave the loans after essentially being shamed into it. FEC report confirms it.