2016 US Presidental election thread

[Darth Penguin]

People walk out on Donald Trump after he threatened Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump held a second rally after he encouraged his supporters to shoot Hillary Clinton, and something odd happened. While Trump was speaking, a steady stream of people got up and walked out.
Donald Trump held a second rally after he encouraged his supporters to shoot Hillary Clinton, and something odd happened. While Trump was speaking, a steady stream of people got up and walked out.
Jenna Johnson of The Washington Post tweeted this video of people streaming out of Trump’s rally, while he was still speaking:
It would be an odd coincidence if people just happened to walk on Trump for a completely unrelated reason at the rally after he suggested that his supporters could use the Second Amendment to stop her from nominating Supreme Court justices as president.
Here is a video of the same crowd chanting lock her up, but notice the empty seats:

[GoJays]

Just when you think Trump couldn't get any crazier, he urges his supporters to assassinate Hillary Clinton. There is no way the media is going to let him off the hook for this.

Doesn't matter what he was referring to. Either way, he needs Imodium because he has diarrhea of the mouth.

[Lynn49]

Doesn't matter what he was referring to. Either way, he needs Imodium because he has diarrhea of the mouth.

He knew exactly what he was talking about! I hope he's canned for suggesting another candidate be shot!!
I'd love to see him charged! It won't happen, but I can dream....

Former NSA Director and retired Lt. General Michael Hayden told CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday that,“If someone else said that outside of the hall, he’d be in the back of a police wagon now, with the Secret Service questioning him.”

[GoJays]

Oh, I'm not debating whether or not he knew what he was talking about, I'm sure he did as he's a very, very smart man. You don't become as rich and successful as he is by being stupid. It's just that he doesn't know when to STFU He's stubborn and pig-headed and doesn't listen to advisors, he thinks he knows best and that everyone will follow him wherever he goes. God-complex? Narcissistic? Yes to both. Like I said to walkonby earlier, just be thankful that you live here and not there because the next four years will surely be a sh!t-show regardless of who is elected. Just my rare two cents.

He knew exactly what he was talking about! I hope he's canned for suggesting another candidate be shot!!
I'd love to see him charged! It won't happen, but I can dream....

Former NSA Director and retired Lt. General Michael Hayden told CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday that,“If someone else said that outside of the hall, he’d be in the back of a police wagon now, with the Secret Service questioning him.”

[lecale]

Oh, I'm not debating whether or not he knew what he was talking about, I'm sure he did as he's a very, very smart man. You don't become as rich and successful as he is by being stupid. It's just that he doesn't know when to STFU He's stubborn and pig-headed and doesn't listen to advisors, he thinks he knows best and that everyone will follow him wherever he goes. God-complex? Narcissistic? Yes to both. Like I said to walkonby earlier, just be thankful that you live here and not there because the next four years will surely be a sh!t-show regardless of who is elected. Just my rare two cents.

There is a constant stream of press that states that Trump is worth about 1/3 of what he claims. Trump won't release his tax returns, observers say, because it would both prove that he's worth less than what he says and prove he has financial interests in Russia.

It's already been firmly proven that Trump lies about his net worth, because an author claimed that, was sued by Trump, and the author's lawyers got access to Trump's financial data on account of the suit. Trump's documents vs. Trump's words...well, he lies like a rug http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852376.html

He's also had four huge bankruptcies, not the sort of thing you see as a mark of a successful businessman. In fact many successful businessmen have called him out on his bankruptcies, and the millions of dollars in loans he got from his father and his father's estate in order to make himself a "self made man".

Pretty well, he's just an old fool. He in no way is presidential material. He should go sell cars.

[Lynn49]

Oh, I'm not debating whether or not he knew what he was talking about, I'm sure he did as he's a very, very smart man. You don't become as rich and successful as he is by being stupid. It's just that he doesn't know when to STFU He's stubborn and pig-headed and doesn't listen to advisors, he thinks he knows best and that everyone will follow him wherever he goes. God-complex? Narcissistic? Yes to both. Like I said to walkonby earlier, just be thankful that you live here and not there because the next four years will surely be a sh!t-show regardless of who is elected. Just my rare two cents.

Sorry @GoJays ..I didn't mean to imply that you were debating his stupid outburst; anyone in their right mind would know exactly what that buffoon meant! He didn't say: "anyone who believes in the 2nd ammendment can vote for me", he absolutely suggested they take up arms against her. And with the idiots who are following that arrogant fool, who knows who might just take him up on it!!
@lecale , it should be mandatory for someone running for the office of the President to disclose that information BEFORE they accept his application to run. The man is an absolute imbecile of the highest order!!

[lecale]

@lecale, it should be mandatory for someone running for the office of the President to disclose that information BEFORE they accept his application to run. The man is an absolute imbecile of the highest order!!

He is being unnecessarily opaque...not just the tax returns, but also Melania's immigration. When the nude photos came out, people started putting together a timeline and looking at her stories about working in the US and they put together that she may have been working for pay when she did not have a valid visa for that...i.e., she was the sort of illegal immigrant that Trump promises to kick out of the country.

Yesterday Trump said that he would have a press conference on Melania's visas in coming weeks. He's just pre-empting the fact that the s*** is already scheduled to hit the fan as one of Clinton's super PACs has already made a FOI request for Melania's visa info. Basically, expect the Democrat Super PAC to hold a press conference first - Trump's "scheduled" presser is just going to be in response to that.

[GoJays]

Sorry @GoJays..I didn't mean to imply that you were debating his stupid outburst;

I know you didn't. No apologies needed, I'm not sensitive that way.

[Darth Penguin]

There is a constant stream of press that states that Trump is worth about 1/3 of what he claims. Trump won't release his tax returns, observers say, because it would both prove that he's worth less than what he says and prove he has financial interests in Russia.

It's already been firmly proven that Trump lies about his net worth, because an author claimed that, was sued by Trump, and the author's lawyers got access to Trump's financial data on account of the suit. Trump's documents vs. Trump's words...well, he lies like a rug http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852376.html

He's also had four huge bankruptcies, not the sort of thing you see as a mark of a successful businessman. In fact many successful businessmen have called him out on his bankruptcies, and the millions of dollars in loans he got from his father and his father's estate in order to make himself a "self made man".

Pretty well, he's just an old fool. He in no way is presidential material. He should go sell cars.

When Mr Trump took over his father's company in 1968, it was worth ITRO US$40million.

The 4 bankruptcies were, IIRC, Chapter 11 allowing the companies to operate normally while they were re-structured to get back onto a firmer financial standing.

[Darth Penguin]

Families' lawsuits against Clinton over Benghazi don't hold up

he parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton claiming, among other things, wrongful death and defamation. From a purely legal standpoint, a roll of toilet paper has more value.
No one doubts the heartache these parents have endured. And no one should question the valor of their sons who lost their lives. However, this lawsuit is so groundless and specious that it threatens to diminish our memory of them.
The plaintiffs claim that Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of confidential and classified government information on her private email server caused the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith. Clinton was surely careless. Indeed, her conduct was probably criminal, notwithstanding FBI Director James Comey’s tortured logic in not recommending prosecution. But the plaintiffs in this civil lawsuit cannot possibly prove that Clinton’s emails were the proximate cause of the Benghazi attack. Not a chance.
First, the plaintiffs would have to establish that Clinton authored an email giving the specific time, date, location and other information on the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others on Sept. 11, 2012. So far, it doesn’t exist. There is no evidence of it.
Second, they’d have to demonstrate that someone hacked Clinton’s server and gave the supposed email to the terrorists. Or, in the alternative, the terrorists did the hacking all by themselves. Again, there is no evidence of that. Yes, Comey said it is possible Clinton’s server was hacked successfully. But there is no proof it ever happened. How do you prove that? In all likelihood, the plaintiffs canno

[Darth Penguin]

So after Clinton is elected and appoints judges, THEN they should vote?

"And by the way, if she gets to pick her judges (i.e., she is already elected), nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Uh, no, the Secret Service made a tweet saying they are aware of the comment.

They would not be addressing this issue if it was a call to vote.

I seriously don't think Mr Trump understands how the Constitution works since SCOTUS can't change any of the Bill of Rights nor the Amendments to the Constitution.
It requires a 2/3 vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as 2/3 of all states and their governors ratifying it. That's not something a President can do by just clicking their fingers and changing the law.

[lecale]

I seriously don't think Mr Trump understands how the Constitution works since SCOTUS can't change any of the Bill of Rights nor the Amendments to the Constitution.
It requires a 2/3 vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as 2/3 of all states and their governors ratifying it. That's not something a President can do by just clicking their fingers and changing the law.

Yes, my understanding is SCOTUS is Trump-like

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-...rticle/2001315

[heartgirl99]

Michael Moore: Trump Is Self-Sabotaging His Campaign Because He Never Really Wanted the Job in the First Place

He's running for president to get a better deal for "The Apprentice."



By Michael Moore / AlterNet
August 16, 2016







http://www.alternet.org/election-201...otage-campaign

[lecale]

^ some say that Trump is angling to set up a right-wing media network.

He's pushed Manafort aside after the Crimea/payments thing, and has brought on two people from Breitbart - which is basically an alt-right, white supremacy, conspiracy-theory "news" site run by a fat disgusting slob who is now CEO of Trump's campaign.

He's appalling all of the moderates and appealing only to hateful extremists at this point - older white males with little education who want to go back to the "good old days" when blacks and women were in their places.

He's lost the election and is digging a deep hole...but perhaps it is just a foxhole to hide in after he comes out with a new right-wing media career after the election.

[Darth Penguin]

Mrs Trump sues Daily Mail for $150m over "lies" about her past

Lawyers for Melania Trump on Thursday filed suit for $150m damages against the Daily Mail in Maryland state court. The wife of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is also suing a blogger, Webster Tarpley, from the state in question.
n a statement, Trump’s lawyer, Charles Harder, said: “These defendants made several statements about Mrs Trump that are 100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation [and] broadcast their lies to millions of people throughout the US and the world – without any justification. “Their many lies include, among others, that Mrs Trump supposedly was an ‘escort’ in the 1990s before she met her husband. Defendants’ actions are so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs Trump that her damages are estimated at $150m.”
The suit was filed in Montgomery County, in suburban Washington DC, in response to articles published in August by the Daily Mail which reported rumors that Trump worked as an escort in the 1990s.
Last month, announcing that Trump was considering a suit, her lawyer called those rumors “100% false”.

The Daily Mail article also contained allegations that Trump came to New York a year earlier than she has claimed, raising issues about her immigration status. Trump denied a story in Politicoin which questions about her immigration status were first reported.

The lawsuit noted that while the article in question had been removed from the Daily Mail’s website, the newspaper had yet to apologize or formally retract. The Mail included a retraction of the story in its Friday UK print edition.
“We did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true,” the newspaper said, “nor did we intend to state or suggest that Mrs Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business’.” It added that its article had included denials from a Trump spokesperson and the owner of the modelling agency in question, and said it regretted “any such misinterpretation”.
The retraction was also posted online. “The Daily Mail newspaper and MailOnline/DailyMail.com have entirely separate editors and journalistic teams,” it added. “In so far as MailOnline/DailyMail.com published the same article it wholeheartedly also retracts the above and also regrets any such misinterpretation.”