First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Wikileaks Releases 20,000 DNC Emails: Media And ANTI-Bernie Collaboration, Fake Trump Ads, Paid Forum Posters.
Posted 7/24/16

DengekiFugu wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uT68riwrFI

70 minutes of Hillary lies. Her own words indict her.


Ohhh I saw a fifteen minute one before. I should have known that video was way too short.
676 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
And I wonder whether this 'leak' is a lie made by Trump in a desperate attempt to get elected...
11041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/24/16

Finalists had to turn over every password for every social media account for every member of their families.



Hahahahahaha fuck that shit right there. Hillary is shameful as fuck.

7558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 7/24/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:



With all due Respect, those sources aren't very convincing to me.

1. Politifact was shown by George Mason University to be Bias against republicans, is owned by Hillary supporters and basically just focuses on negative comments.

My proof:http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

https://www.quora.com/Politifact-claims-Sanders-lies-more-than-Clinton-How-can-this-possibly-be-true

(It's just not a reliable source for a test of honesty, when all they do is just point out the F Trump got in Math, while he got A"s in the other 8 classes).

2. The next three sources don't having anything to do with Trump as a person in particular and I will explain why. Trump's business model in those terms given based on the sources you gave refer to the franchise model for those who don't know. Basically, it's in Trumps name, but not actually managed by him.

In other words, would the CEO of McDonald's who works in New York be held liable for an illegal action done by a General Manger working in Dallas Texas? This is essentially a little misleading. Although the company as a WHOLE would have to be responsible, for certain, the CEO basically had nothing to do with it. You could get Trump on false advertising, which would make sense considering he is known for his Hyperbole approach to marketing. However, if everything is franchised from his small businesses, to his hotels, it would make perfect sense that Trump wouldn't know the people in charge of Trump University as his own business model would be the same for Trump University.

In other words, Trump has sometimes in the past, gotten bad people into his business, but they were only a small fraction of his entire business enterprise and were always fired. The franchise model is actually a really smart model, because the legal liability is safer. Trump has over thousands of investments and multiple properties, the majority of which are profitable.

http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/trump-business-career/

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010416/companies-donald-trump-owns.asp

Also, the judge for Trump University, does have a bias against Trump, which is enough to call for a change of venue, at least.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/480714972/trump-presses-case-that-mexican-judge-curiel-is-biased-against-him

Who illegally opened up documents he wasn't supposed to.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281893-judge-in-trump-university-case-reseals-some-documents

Who is a member of La Raza lawyer group, whom's end goal is to turn California into a "Hispanic" State.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanicleaders.asp

We should be more impartial and we all have the right to look at all the evidence, and reevaluate our beliefs.


Sorry, but if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. By his own admission he has admitted to defrauding workers, hiring illegals and lying whenever he felt like it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/10/dozens-lawsuits-accuse-trump-not-paying-his-bills-reports-claim.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-911_us_565b1950e4b08e945feb7326
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-presidential-campaign_us_56acef96e4b0010e80ea4d6e
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-eliot-spitzer-lawsuit-video-2011-4
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/donald-trump-fact-check-trade-immigration-campaign
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trump-gets-lost-beneath-avalanche-falsehoods
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-lying-rnc-speech-article-1.2719276
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap-fact-check-donald-trumps-rnc-speech/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/samuel-l-jackson-claims-he-just-caught-donald-trump-lying-about-golf
http://time.com/4157265/donald-trump-politifact-lie/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-national-convention-2016-fact-checking-speakers/story?id=40684860
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160721/00504135025/donald-trump-threatens-art-deal-ghostwriter-claiming-his-disloyalty-somehow-amounts-to-defamation.shtml

Since you had problems with the sources here are quite a few more well-known sources with pretty much the same information.
24537 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/16 , edited 7/24/16
Clinton campaign expects Shultz to be out by the end of the day but Shultz is fighting it saying she was appointed by the president. She also says she can weather this storm. Her ass...

Word on the street is that Obama needs to step in.

It's official, her ass is stepping down at the end of the convention. It's shameful what she did to Bernie. Good riddance. But she's still going to address the convention, probably to get people to watch it.

Nevermind, her addressing the convention is her decision alone. Word is Clinton camp isn't okay with this.
37232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/16

Jarexx wrote:

Hilary has got to be the most corrupt candidate running for president ever. Trump may not be the most pleasant person, but at least he's honest.

I'll take an honest person over a dirty liar.


Trump, honest? You have to be kidding.
35517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
You know, there's a funny line that always gets thrown in peoples' faces when these sort of situations arise. It mostly comes from tone deaf people on the ground rather than party officials on the record, but it's out there. It goes something like this:

"Political parties aren't democracies. They're private clubs and they can push for whatever candidate they think has the best chance to win and that will serve the interests of the party."

It's technically correct, too. Political parties are private clubs of a sort, and certainly they could push for a candidate during a nominating contest because they believe that person has the best chance against their rivals (a questionable claim for Clinton, but I'll avoid digression). Technically there doesn't even have to be a primary election. Technically party officials could just gather one time and discuss who they want, then nominate them. I'll yield that.

Here's the thing, though: the DNC promised objectivity and democracy this primary cycle, and both the party and its favourite candidate put great emphasis on the results of the primary as purely the product of an evenhanded democratic process. The DNC pushed off any accusation that they were biased toward Hillary Clinton by insisting they were but neutral arbiters who would gladly welcome whoever won a fair electoral contest. The Clinton camp repeatedly referred to her vote totals to assure everyone her selection was legitimate and that there was no cause for her to grant concessions to the Sanders camp, an argument that presumes a fair democratic process has taken place. And now that evidence has come to light showing that the DNC was not neutral and the contest therefore was not fair suddenly it doesn't matter, because political parties aren't democracies anyway? No. Not how it works. Sorry. The DNC lied and perceptions of Clinton's legitimacy as the nominee have been damaged as a result of that lie.

Given that I understand why people are calling for Sanders to disavow his endorsement of Clinton. Still, I also understand why Sanders' fire wasn't directed toward Hillary Clinton when he issued his statement on this matter and why he hasn't disavowed. He knows that doing so would put the concessions he's drawn out of the Democratic Party and Clinton herself at risk of being withdrawn, and even though there's no way people can be confident that Clinton will keep her word or that the DNC will effect lasting, substantial changes at least they've been forced to put those promises to paper to serve as battle lines for the next set of primaries. He knows that the DNC won't embrace him, that the delegates won't turn around and support him, and that Clinton won't decline the nomination. He knows that if he disavows Clinton at this point he'll basically be handing the election to Trump by splitting the Democratic vote in two. He knows that Trump is lying about his support for progressive ideas and that a Trump administration would damage the cause of progressivism far more than Clinton ever could. There's a broader plan here, and I see where he's going with it, so I will be fine with him if he doesn't disavow. But let's be clear: that's a reflection of my confidence in Sanders, not in Clinton or the DNC.
17663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 7/24/16

BlueOni wrote:

You know, there's a funny line that always gets thrown in peoples' faces when these sort of situations arise. It mostly comes from tone deaf people on the ground rather than party officials on the record, but it's out there. It goes something like this:

"Political parties aren't democracies. They're private clubs and they can push for whatever candidate they think has the best chance to win and that will serve the interests of the party."

It's technically correct, too. Political parties are private clubs of a sort, and certainly they could push for a candidate during a nominating contest because they believe that person has the best chance against their rivals (a questionable claim for Clinton, but I'll avoid digression). Technically there doesn't even have to be a primary election. Technically party officials could just gather one time and discuss who they want, then nominate them. I'll yield that.

Here's the thing, though: the DNC promised objectivity and democracy this primary cycle, and both the party and its favourite candidate put great emphasis on the results of the primary as purely the product of an evenhanded democratic process. The DNC pushed off any accusation that they were biased toward Hillary Clinton by insisting they were but neutral arbiters who would gladly welcome whoever won a fair electoral contest. The Clinton camp repeatedly referred to her vote totals to assure everyone her selection was legitimate and that there was no cause for her to grant concessions to the Sanders camp, an argument that presumes a fair democratic process has taken place. And now that evidence has come to light showing that the DNC was not neutral and the contest therefore was not fair suddenly it doesn't matter, because political parties aren't democracies anyway? No. Not how it works. Sorry. The DNC lied and perceptions of Clinton's legitimacy as the nominee have been damaged as a result of that lie.

Given that I understand why people are calling for Sanders to disavow his endorsement of Clinton. Still, I also understand why Sanders' fire wasn't directed toward Hillary Clinton when he issued his statement on this matter and why he hasn't disavowed. He knows that doing so would put the concessions he's drawn out of the Democratic Party and Clinton herself at risk of being withdrawn, and even though there's no way people can be confident that Clinton will keep her word or that the DNC will effect lasting, substantial changes at least they've been forced to put those promises to paper to serve as battle lines for the next set of primaries. He knows that the DNC won't embrace him, that the delegates won't turn around and support him, and that Clinton won't decline the nomination. He knows that if he disavows Clinton at this point he'll basically be handing the election to Trump by splitting the Democratic vote in two. He knows that Trump is lying about his support for progressive ideas and that a Trump administration would damage the cause of progressivism far more than Clinton ever could. There's a broader plan here, and I see where he's going with it, so I will be fine with him if he doesn't disavow. But let's be clear: that's a reflection of my confidence in Sanders, not in Clinton or the DNC.


Gotta agree with you right there. The only reason Trump was allowed in the republican ticket is because he was rich and they thought he had no chance in hell of being chosen. They didn't think that a moderate candidate stood a chance. Then they tried stopping him in an illegal way and things got even worse for them. They wanted their buddy elected not a rebel that will not listen to them.

The political parties have been the problem in the USA and they maintain power by preventing a 3rd party or absorbing 3rd parties.
292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
The Clintons have been the most corrupt public officials our country has seen. It is evident that the Democratic Party machinery has been stacked against anyone who opposes them.For Democrats, the problem wasn't at all what Debbie Wasserman and others did. That stuff will continue.
The problem is only that she got caught. Wait till Clinton foundation frauds start coming out.
Humms 
11078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
Tell me something I don't know
24537 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/16 , edited 7/24/16
Apparently Debby Wasserman Shultz was just brought on to Hillary's campaign to be an honorary chair of her 50 state plan...

You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-names-wasserman-schultz-honorary-chair-of-campaign-team/article/2597520?custom_click=rss

I'm guessing she had some dirt on Hillary forcing her to play ball. Bad look all around.
17099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
Fuck Debby Wasserman and the fact that she was too busy kissing Hillary's p*ssy so she can keep Bernie out.
35517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/24/16 , edited 7/24/16

Rujikin wrote:

Gotta agree with you right there. The only reason Trump was allowed in the republican ticket is because he was rich and they thought he had no chance in hell of being chosen. They didn't think that a moderate candidate stood a chance. Then they tried stopping him in an illegal way and things got even worse for them. They wanted their buddy elected not a rebel that will not listen to them.

The political parties have been the problem in the USA and they maintain power by preventing a 3rd party or absorbing 3rd parties.


I think you're absolutely right that the Republican establishment's biggest worry was that they couldn't control Trump, but I'm not sure he's a rebel. I really think that Trump's success this year has been the result of a long-building frustration with the political establishment within the Republican Party for being too measured, temperate, and calculating finally coming to a head and Trump marketing himself in just the right way at the right time. He says all the standard Republican lines and promotes most of the standard Republican policies, and he's more than willing to accept big donor money even if only through Mike Pence, but he's marketing these things in a way that's more in tune with the sentiments of the Republican electorate this year.

I will admit, however, that it is very interesting to see a Republican candidate marketing himself as against expanding trade agreements and calling for economic protectionism. Maybe that's what you mean? The cynic in me looks at his own personal business relationship with outsourcing and labour unions and suspect it's just a ploy, so I don't count it, but maybe there's some reason you don't think it's a ploy and do count it?
17663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 7/24/16

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Gotta agree with you right there. The only reason Trump was allowed in the republican ticket is because he was rich and they thought he had no chance in hell of being chosen. They didn't think that a moderate candidate stood a chance. Then they tried stopping him in an illegal way and things got even worse for them. They wanted their buddy elected not a rebel that will not listen to them.

The political parties have been the problem in the USA and they maintain power by preventing a 3rd party or absorbing 3rd parties.


I think you're absolutely right that the Republican establishment's biggest worry was that they couldn't control Trump, but I'm not sure he's a rebel. I really think that Trump's success this year has been the result of a long-building frustration with the political establishment within the Republican Party for being too measured, temperate, and calculating finally coming to a head and Trump marketing himself in just the right way at the right time. He says all the standard Republican lines and promotes most of the standard Republican policies, and he's more than willing to accept big donor money even if only through Mike Pence, but he's marketing these things in a way that's more in tune with the sentiments of the Republican electorate this year.

I will admit, however, that it is very interesting to see a Republican candidate marketing himself as against expanding trade agreements and calling for economic protectionism. Maybe that's what you mean? The cynic in me looks at his own personal business relationship with outsourcing and labour unions and suspect it's just a ploy, so I don't count it, but maybe there's some reason you don't think it's a ploy and do count it?


They literally teach you to outsource stuff to other countries be competitive in college. We offer economic incentives to companies that move operations over seas. We prevent companies from bringing money they made over seas back into the USA without double taxing it; if it isn't obvious this causes them to move production/development over seas to use up some of that money so they can have less expenses in the USA.

As a business man he made the right decision based on current laws and economic incentives... However it is horrible long term solution because it hurts buying power in the USA but if you don't compete with people overshoring then you go bankrupt...
9288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/24/16
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.