Going after families? For the love of god don't fulfil that promise.
They both suck. But trump is worse.
And that's the thing. We both acknowledge they're trash, but we disagree on who's worse.
Trump wants to go after families of Terrorists stupid, ignorant, sickening. idea.
Clinton is trying to kill americans. Tax them to death, let all the jobs continue to be sent over seas, let illegal immigrants, take the jobs, keep giving away billions of our dollars to others countries while we can't even pay our own bills, bleed us to death slowly.
I guess it boils down to who do we want to see being killed. Foreign families or our own.
I posted about religious vote because I live in the bible belt. It will be both black and white females voting for him in the southern states. And males as well.
He has zero % of the black vote. If you want to argue white southerners, I'll say well duh. Republicans have the south as its domain. Just like Dems have the Northeast, Northwest, Cali, and a good chunk of the Midwest.
However, he's going to have the lowest % of black vote from any candidate in history.
Most, but not all, of the posts are about how terrible the other candidate is.
I don't see too many posts that address why we should vote for either candidate other than "the other candidate is terrible."
LOL.........it's actually comical in a sick sort of way to come on here and read 56 new posts that ignore the virtues [sic] of the poster's preferred candidate and instead focus on how the other candidate is the devil.
These are our choices to lead our country?
I think we can make history here. I think that the climate and the two main candidates make this election ripe for going in a brand new direction.
That's because nobody can find any good reasons to vote for either one because they both suck. It's like being given the choice to take either your sister, or your brother to the prom as your date
Oh and voting for Johnson is like taking a cute girl to the Prom. BUT it's a virtual date and you have to carry around your laptop and just see her on video the whole time.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I just wanted to point this out: What Julian Assange says and journalists' interpretation of what he says is often different. Take this video. It is informative but also misleading. Assange said that the next leak will provide enough evidence to indict Hillary. The title says that the next leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary, a point that is mentioned in the video itself. Those are not the same things. It is extraordinarily unlikely that Loretta Lynch would indict Hillary Clinton. Assange knows that.
My bad guys, I forgot. He isn't a war hero according to Trump.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Most, but not all, of the posts are about how terrible the other candidate is.
I don't see too many posts that address why we should vote for either candidate other than "the other candidate is terrible."
LOL.........it's actually comical in a sick sort of way to come on here and read 56 new posts that ignore the virtues [sic] of the poster's preferred candidate and instead focus on how the other candidate is the devil.
These are our choices to lead our country?
I think we can make history here. I think that the climate and the two main candidates make this election ripe for going in a brand new direction.
I completely agree but we do get what we put into it. People are terribly uninformed and how our government was designed to work and many times only see the D&R next to their name. People I speak to regularly can't name their Senators or Congressman so how can they possibly know if they do a good job or not.
Most people I speak to will excuse anything their candidate does or their "party" for that matter. Myself, there is one candidate I can not stand the idea of them being our President, the other is only slightly less than tolerable.
I also am amazed at the people who wonder why the government is deadlocked all the time. Our country is essentially split about 50/50 from an idealism standpoint. Using generalities, Conservatives send/elect Senators & Congressman to cut taxes, make government smaller & less intrusive, build a national defense etc,.
Liberal leaning folks want government to assist its citizens much more, right past wrongs and limit defense spending etc.
If our representatives don't do what we send them for they run risk of not getting reelected so both side collide. Common sense will tell you it is tough to avoid.
Additionally the corruption is rampant and money is crazy. An average Joe Senator with moderate wealth who is elected should not have a net worth of over $15 million by virtue of his government salary.
You and I would be arrested for using influence and information for personal gain the way they do.
This map explains it better than me. Trump has one hell of a hole to climb out of. If Hillary wins Florida and holds on to the states in blue she wins. She doesn't even need to keep ALL of the blue states. If she holds on to all of the blue states listed, she just needs North Carolina, Florida or Ohio.
The other thing to remember is it is extremely early. Debate 1 has not even happened. 3 months is an incredibly long time in politics.
Verbal gaffs, world events, local events can change in a heart beat. Press can dig up even more negatives on these 2.
Commercials are just starting to run against each candidate.
The other thing I think today that is different from 20 years ago are polls. I am not sure how to know if they are accurately reflective of the nations mindset. So many voters are not reachable via phone because of the dwindling # of land lines. That used to be primary source of reference used by polls.
This will be an interesting election. I really don't know how to read it. People have counted trump out numerous times such as once the primaries get rolling his support will stop, then he can't make it past December etc, etc ,etc. But he just kept winning. I know I can't believe he was the GOP nominee.
Hillary is a survivor. All the scandals (whether you agree or not they are true/real) she just keeps hanging in there. She also has a very well organized political machine in place.
Both of them seem to be Teflon don when it comes to much of anything sticking.
These debates are what is gonna determine who's in or out come November.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You make it all sound so simple just like I have been hearing for a year now, Trump won't win. Well the guy has yet to lose.
Somebody's simply got it all wrong.
It's no different than when people kept saying Hillary was going to get indicted. It's been a strange primary season. However, the general election is not the same as the primaries.
You make it all sound so simple just like I have been hearing for a year now, Trump won't win. Well the guy has yet to lose.
Somebody's simply got it all wrong.
It's no different than when people kept saying Hillary was going to get indicted. It's been a strange primary season. However, the general election is not the same as the primaries.
As far as Hillary not being indicted, I wouldn't count those chickens until they hatch.
This map explains it better than me. Trump has one hell of a hole to climb out of. If Hillary wins Florida and holds on to the states in blue she wins. She doesn't even need to keep ALL of the blue states. If she holds on to all of the blue states listed, she just needs North Carolina, Florida or Ohio.
Shy Tory Factor. Trump's support out there is being underestimated by all the polls. The Clinton machine (and I'm including most of the media in this, btw) has done a masterful job of portraying Trump as being evil, fascist, and all sorts of other dubious adjectives. These names are not accurate, but perception matters and there is a lot of that out there.
They have even managed to convince some diehards that anybody who votes for Trump must be a racist! I know that idea is comical to many of us, but a lot of people actually do believe it and as a result, I believe that there is a significant chunk of people out there who plan on voting for Trump but are pretending to be lukewarm in their interest for social reasons alone.
A similar thing happened with Brexit. If polls remain about even in our election, Hillary will be in trouble.
Talking to my youngest Son yesterday, he has always been a Lefty but supports Johnson this year, and I told him the Koch Brothers are not giving a penny to Trump in this election.
His reply, "That makes me want to vote for Trump! The Press, the Republican Establishment, the Democrats, Big Banks, and Wall Street are out to get this guy and that tells any thinking person something!"
The Clinton machine (and I'm including most of the media in this, btw) has done a masterful job of portraying Trump as being evil, fascist, and all sorts of other dubious adjectives. These names are not accurate, but perception matters and there is a lot of that out there.
We had someone on here post that "anyone" could see that Hillary Clinton is "the devil." Hillary Clinton's name is now echoed with the moniker "Crooked."
Who is doing a good job of name-calling and making it stick?
The media simply reporting the crap that comes out of Trumps own mouth.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The Clinton machine (and I'm including most of the media in this, btw) has done a masterful job of portraying Trump as being evil, fascist, and all sorts of other dubious adjectives. These names are not accurate, but perception matters and there is a lot of that out there.
We had someone on here post that "anyone" could see that Hillary Clinton is "the devil." Hillary Clinton's name is now echoed with the moniker "Crooked."
Who is doing a good job of name-calling and making it stick?
Trump himself, of course. He is very skilled at it. I'm not even sure how I feel about it myself but you can't deny that he has come up with some very fitting nicknames that just seem to... well, stick. Think about the process that Trump and Hillary had to go through to win their respective parties' nominations.
Trump - minimal funding at the beginning, didn't have establishment backing, went against a huge field of Republicans, most of whom did have establishment backing, media against him from day one. Heck, even Fox News has been pretty brutal to him
Hillary - enormous war chest due to many 'questionable' donors, establishment choice, pretty much handed the nomination (the DNC sabotaged her one true competitor), media shills for her 24/7
It's actually pretty remarkable that Trump has gotten this far, and still has a legitimate shot at winning this election. I think it's pretty even right now. I had previously said that I thought Hillary was favored win, just speaking objectively there, but I'm not so sure about that anymore.
The media simply reporting the crap that comes out of Trumps own mouth.
I realize that Trump has said some controversial things (many of which have an underlying basis in fact, by the way). Some people will never let him live those statements down and that's fine. You can't tell me that the media simply reports what he says though. Yeah they take a small snippet of what he says, apply the worst interpretation of it you can come up with, and then report on it. You don't hear about the times he stood up for the LGBTQ community's safety and wellbeing, after Orlando and during the RNC speech. You don't hear about how he vouches for ALL American citizens, like improving the situation for black and latino citizens, the very same thing you have tried to do on this board. Again, that was during the RNC speech. Media won't touch it. Apparently it was all doom and gloom because he stood up for police officers and was tough on terrorists.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Anybody got some credible info on trumps standing with banks?
Some lady on Fox News said a lot of banks won't loan him money. Just trying to get more info on that.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I don't remember if he did during the RNC speech. I'm guessing probably not because it probably would have stuck with me if he did, but I genuinely don't remember
He has stood up for victims of police violence before. For example, he was very critical of the police response in the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings. He has called them senseless, tragic deaths, among other things.
Before you go and bash the sources (which I'm hestitant to use myself, but video is video), watch the clip and you'll see that he openly acknowledges the possibility of things that you yourself have said on here... e.g. that African-Americans may be treated differently by the justice system. I'll tell you what, this guy sounds a whole lot more reasonable than 'Super Predator' Hillary Clinton, but don't ever expect mainstream media to tell us that.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
When Donald Trump Needs a Loan, He Chooses Deutsche Bank Despite some clashes, the Republican front-runner has been a regular client of the German lender Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. ENLARGE Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. PHOTO: JOSH EDELSON/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES By ANUPREETA DAS Updated March 20, 2016 1:35 p.m. ET 296 COMMENTS One of Donald Trump’s closest allies on Wall Street is a now-struggling German bank.
While many big banks have shunned him, Deutsche Bank AG has been a steadfast financial backer of the Republican presidential candidate’s business interests. Since 1998, the bank has led or participated in loans of at least $2.5 billion to companies affiliated with Mr. Trump, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public records and people familiar with the matter.
That doesn’t include at least another $1 billion in loan commitments that Deutsche Bank made to Trump-affiliated entities.
The long-standing connection makes Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank, which has a large U.S. operation and has been grappling with reputational problems and an almost 50% stock-price decline, the financial institution with probably the strongest ties to the controversial New York businessman.
But the relations at times have been rocky. Deutsche Bank’s giant investment-banking unit stopped working with Mr. Trump after an acrimonious legal spat, even as another arm of the company continued to loan him money.
RELATED
Donald Trump Owes At Least $250 Million to Banks Donald Trump’s Three Friends in Finance Other Wall Street banks, after doing extensive business with Mr. Trump in the 1980s and 1990s, pulled back in part due to frustration with his business practices but also because he moved away from real-estate projects that required financing, according to bank officials. Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley are among the banks that don’t currently work with him.
At Goldman Sachs Group Inc., bankers “know better than to pitch” a Trump-related deal, said a former Goldman executive. Goldman officials say there is little overlap between its core investment-banking group and Mr. Trump’s businesses.
The lukewarm relations with banks is one reason Mr. Trump’s White House bid hasn’t received much financial support from Wall Street, bankers and fund managers say. The securities and investment industry, which includes Wall Street firms, has donated roughly $19 million toward the campaign of Hillary Clinton, so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Trump, who is largely self-funded, has received $17,255.
Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka. ENLARGE Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka. PHOTO: GRANT LAMOS IV/GETTY IMAGES Ivanka Trump, who works with her father at the Trump Organization LLC, which holds the family’s real-estate and other business interests, denied that Wall Street banks are wary of doing business with the family.
“The biggest banking institutions are constantly soliciting us,” Ms. Trump said in an interview. “But we don’t need a lot of financing because we have a great balance sheet and a tremendous amount of cash.”
Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Mr. Trump dates to the 1990s. The bank, eager to expand in the U.S. via commercial-real-estate lending, set out to woo big New York developers such as Mr. Trump and Harry Macklowe.
Advertisement
One of the bank’s first loans to Mr. Trump, in 1998, was $125 million to renovate the office building at 40 Wall Street. More deals soon followed, with the bank agreeing over the next few years to loan or help underwrite bonds worth a total of more than $1.3 billion for Trump entities.
By 2005, Deutsche Bank had emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s leading bankers. That year, the German bank and others lent a Trump entity $640 million to build the 92-story Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago. Deutsche Bank officials badly wanted the deal because it came with a $12.5 million fee attached, said a person familiar with the matter.
Mr. Trump charmed the bankers, flying them on his private Boeing 727 jet, according to people who traveled with him.
But when the housing bubble burst, the relationship frayed.
ENLARGE In 2008, Mr. Trump failed to pay $334 million he owed on the Chicago loan because of lackluster sales of the building’s units. He then sued Deutsche Bank. His argument was that the economic crisis constituted a “force majeure”—an unforeseen event such as war or natural disaster—that should excuse the repayment until conditions improved.
His lawyers were inspired to invoke the clause after hearing former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan describe the crisis as a “once-in-a-century credit tsunami,” according to a person who worked on the case for Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump also attacked Deutsche Bank’s lending practices and said that as a big bank, it was partially responsible for causing the financial crisis. He sought $3 billion in damages.
Deutsche Bank in turn sued Mr. Trump, saying it was owed $40 million that the businessman had personally guaranteed in case his company was unable to repay the loan.
Deutsche Bank argued that Mr. Trump had a cavalier history toward banks, quoting from his 2007 book, “Think Big And Kick Ass In Business And Life.”
“I figured it was the bank’s problem, not mine,” Mr. Trump wrote, according to the lawsuit. “What the hell did I care? I actually told one bank, ‘I told you you shouldn’t have loaned me that money. I told you that deal was no good.’”
The court rejected Mr. Trump’s arguments but the suit forced Deutsche Bank to the negotiating table. The two sides agreed to settle their suits out of court in 2009. The following year, they extended the original loan by five years. It was paid off in 2012—with the help of a loan from the German firm’s private bank.
While Deutsche Bank didn’t lose money on the deal, the fracas soured its investment bankers on working with Mr. Trump. “He was persona non grata after that,” said a banker who worked on the deal.
But not everyone within Deutsche Bank wanted to sever the relationship. The company’s private-banking arm, which caters to ultrarich families and individuals, picked up the slack, lending well over $300 million to Trump entities in the following years.
One of those loans, for $125 million, was to finance the purchase of Miami’s Doral Golf Resort and Spa in 2011, which he re-christened Trump National Doral.
Mr. Trump has promised to hold a celebration there if he is elected president.
Donald Trump Owes At Least $250 Million to Banks Republican presidential candidate's creditors mostly are small firms
By ANUPREETA DAS Mar 20, 2016 10:17 am ET 242 COMMENTS Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump owes at least $250 million to banks for various real estate projects, according to his personal finance disclosure forms.
His creditors mostly are small firms, from New Jersey-based Amboy Bank to specialized real-estate firm Ladder Capital Finance LLC. Deutsche Bank is the only bank with a big Wall Street presence that continues to lend to him, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
Since 2012, the German bank has lent Mr. Trump more than $300 million through its private bank. Most recently, it committed to lending Mr. Trump $170 million to help with the ongoing renovation of the Old Post Office building in Washington, which the businessman is converting into a luxury hotel.
Earlier deals were done through the investment bank, but ties to that unit frayed after Mr. Trump sued Deutsche Bank over a 2005 Chicago property loan. The suit was settled five years later.
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley are among the big Wall Street shops that do very little, if any, work with Trump-affiliated businesses. Bankers say that’s partly because Mr. Trump has moved away from developing multimillion-dollar real-estate projects to managing them and licensing the Trump name, reducing his need to borrow.
He also has grown more conservative in his use of debt, his daughter Ivanka Trump said in an interview. Ms. Trump helps her father manage the family’s real-estate and other assets at The Trump Organization LLC. Mr. Trump has $1 billion of his own equity in current projects, she added.
When he does look for outside funds, Mr. Trump picks banks that offer the lowest interest rates — often as low as 2% that large investment banks cannot always offer, according to people familiar with his dealings. Private banks are usually able to offer lower rates and will accept a personal guarantee on a loan, whereas investment banks typically offer “non-recourse” loans that are secured with collateral such as property.
Things were very different in the 1980s and 1990s, when some of the biggest Wall Street firms lent regularly to Mr. Trump’s casino and hotel businesses. Deutsche Bank, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia and Credit Suisse First Boston were among the firms that were active players in real-estate or gaming. Bankers Trust, a firm that Deutsche Bank bought in 1999 was another big lender to Mr. Trump, with ties going back to the New Yorker’s earliest days as a real-estate developer.
When star banker Ken Moelis joined UBS AG in 2000, his hire was considered a coup in the banking industry because he brought clients such as Mr. Trump.
In the early 2000s, Mr. Trump’s publicly-traded casino company struggled under a $1.8 billion debt burden. UBS and Morgan Stanley advised the company on restructuring its debt and lent it $500 million in 2004.
Scott Butera, a former UBS banker who Mr. Trump hired to help restructure the casino business, recalls the fraught situation between the company and a group of about 30 creditors including several banks. “But for better or worse, Wall Street has a short memory,” said Mr. Butera, who is supporting Mr. Trump in the presidential race. “All of Donald’s difficult situations were eventually resolved.”
Thanks. I actually don't know Breitbart all that well. They seem to be doing some good work, but I'm a bit skeptical of them just like I am of any source that seems to have an obvious right (or left) wing bias. It's not so much that the bias means what they report is wrong, it's that you'll typically only get one side of an issue.
They should be talking about this video on the news, I'm not really sure why they're not. Either way, I think everyone needs to start voting Gary Johnson, and hard.
Donald Trump suggested on Monday that the November election may be “rigged” against him.
“I’m afraid the election is going be rigged, I have to be honest,” Trump said at a town hall in Columbus, Ohio.
The Republican nominee pointed to Bernie Sanders’ unsuccessful Democratic primary campaign as an example of elections being rigged. Trump has frequently claimed that Hillary Clinton only won the primary because national Democrats intervened on her behalf.
At his Monday campaign rally, Trump added that the Republican Party could not stop him in the GOP primary because of the margin of victory he racked up.
“Poor Bernie. He looks so upset. You know what, he shouldn’t have made a deal,” Trump said, referring to Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton. “I think my side was rigged if I didn’t win by massive landslides.”
Trump’s past claims about the Democratic primary were based on leaked Democratic National Committee emails that suggested party officials opposed Sanders’ continued campaign in the late stages of the primary. It wasn’t clear what fed his speculation about either the Republican primary or upcoming general election.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Lol at thinking Donald Trump is going to get crushed in the debates. Other way around Swish. Even you have to admit that Trump is a remarkably good persuader, and he is going to be armed with some very disturbing information about Hillary and the DNC. Hillary is lethargic at best, and in the words of Huma Abedin, "often confused".
stupid, ignorant, sickening. idea.
