“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.”
What does that have to do with the acts they committed or the fact they grew up in the US?
Are you suggesting because of their faith and their family that they were less of an American than somebody who has longer generational ties to the US?
Well, without thinking it out too deeply, if they committed a terrorist act against America or her Citizens then yes, he is less of an American than the innocents he harmed.
Well, without thinking it out too deeply, if they committed a terrorist act against America or her Citizens then yes, he is less of an American than the innocents he harmed.
I understand what the American citizen terrorists did. But, that wasn't the question. Fish said "their families were muslim" even though those who committed the act were Americans like you and I. My question to Fish was...does their parents country of birth and faith make their sons/daughters less of an American and if so, why?
Hmmm, all the women I know think Hillary is a two faced liar when it comes to representing women, most of them are voting for Trump.
[He]: "Babe... you know it's voting day today.... right?" [He]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "...and we talked about this, right?" [She]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "And we discussed how Hillary is evil, and why Trump is the better choice for America, right?" [She]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "So you remember how I told you to cast your ballot, right?" [She]: Mmhmm..." [He]: "That's great, honey. It's why I love you. I can always count on you to do the right thing..." [She]: "Yes, dear. Yes, you can." ... (smiles to self)
Perhaps you you don't "know" them as well as you think you do. Just a thought to consider.
Hint: these numbers came from a contest between Willard "I'm what your husband always wanted to be" Romney, and Barack "up from the dregs,'shuck & jive'/, Pimpdaddy" Obama.
European-American women (who are still, by numbers, overwhelmingly married to European-American men), broke ranks- and clocked these telling numbers, just 4 years ago. 4 years ago- when the GOP candidate had a strong fighting chance to take down an incumbent sitting POTUS. A morally 'squeaky-clean' GOP candidate who had NO personal history of misogyny or sexual aggression whatsoever.
Cut all the "Hillary's a snake" rhetoric aside, for just a moment, and ask yourself:
"Who is the Average American Suburban Housewife going to vote for, this November?"
No matter how awful Hillary Clinton may be as a candidate for POTUS, American women from Milo, Maine to La Mesa, California will vote AGAINST every masher, manipulator, stalker, bully, predatory boss, and low-class dude who ever hit on them in a bar...
...because that's how Donald Trump has always presented himself in the public arena.
They'll vote AGAINST him in record numbers- and their husbands will be astounded at the post-polling results. They'll do it just like they did when Mitt Romney still had a shot in 2012... and Mitt Romney was a choirboy, compared to this piece of Human Detritus.
Men THINK they run [****] in their house. Women have always thought for themselves... even when it was illegal for them to do so.
American Women will sink Donald Trump in landslide numbers, and they'll do it because of one thing:
He embodies everything they have ever loathed about men: He's a "Neanderthal American Male On HGH" -and he's also over the age of sexual desirability.
This is how we American voters think. We vote "image" and "identity."
Issues are only side arguments we dudes use to bolster our positions in message board deadbates. My wife cuts through all that crap... and I actually LISTEN to my wife. She will never vote for someone like Trump... and we don't talk politics more than 2-3 days in an entire year. I'd never presume to coach her about how to vote- she has her own mind.... and I respect that.
People vote with their hearts.... and Donald Trump has lost waaaay too many women to ever win this election.
No matter how awful Hillary Clinton may be as a candidate for POTUS, American women from Milo, Maine to La Mesa, California will vote AGAINST every masher, manipulator, stalker, bully, predatory boss, and low-class dude who ever hit on them in a bar...
...because that's how Donald Trump has always presented himself in the public arena.
They'll vote AGAINST him in record numbers- and their husbands will be astounded at the post-polling results. They'll do it just like they did when Mitt Romney still had a shot in 2012... and Mitt Romney was a choirboy, compared to this piece of Human Detritus.
Men THINK they run [****] in their house. Women have always thought for themselves... even when it was illegal for them to do so.
American Women will sink Donald Trump in landslide numbers, and they'll do it because of one thing:
He embodies everything they have ever loathed about men: He's a "Neanderthal American Male On HGH" -and he's also over the age of sexual desirability.
This is how we American voters think. We vote "image" and "identity."
I have one comment and one honest question about that Clem.
Question...How many women voted for Bill Clinton when he ran for President?
Comment.... while I agree that a lot of women don't like Donald and may vote against him for the reason you stated. How much more angry would women be if they were telling there friends about being groped, mashed, abused, etc, etc, and another woman interrupted them and blamed them for being treated that way, saying it was their own fault not the man's. Who would those women be more angry with?
Donald the masher, or Hillary the woman who blames them for being mashed?
Hmmm, all the women I know think Hillary is a two faced liar when it comes to representing women, most of them are voting for Trump.
[He]: "Babe... you know it's voting day today.... right?" [He]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "...and we talked about this, right?" [She]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "And we discussed how Hillary is evil, and why Trump is the better choice for America, right?" [She]: "Mmhmm..." [He]: "So you remember how I told you to cast your ballot, right?" [She]: Mmhmm..." [He]: "That's great, honey. It's why I love you. I can always count on you to do the right thing..." [She]: "Yes, dear. Yes, you can." ... (smiles to self)
Perhaps you you don't "know" them as well as you think you do. Just a thought to consider.
Hint: these numbers came from a contest between Willard "I'm what your husband always wanted to be" Romney, and Barack "up from the dregs,'shuck & jive'/, Pimpdaddy" Obama.
European-American women (who are still, by numbers, overwhelmingly married to European-American men), broke ranks- and clocked these telling numbers, just 4 years ago. 4 years ago- when the GOP candidate had a strong fighting chance to take down an incumbent sitting POTUS. A morally 'squeaky-clean' GOP candidate who had NO personal history of misogyny or sexual aggression whatsoever.
Cut all the "Hillary's a snake" rhetoric aside, for just a moment, and ask yourself:
"Who is the Average American Suburban Housewife going to vote for, this November?"
No matter how awful Hillary Clinton may be as a candidate for POTUS, American women from Milo, Maine to La Mesa, California will vote AGAINST every masher, manipulator, stalker, bully, predatory boss, and low-class dude who ever hit on them in a bar...
...because that's how Donald Trump has always presented himself in the public arena.
They'll vote AGAINST him in record numbers- and their husbands will be astounded at the post-polling results. They'll do it just like they did when Mitt Romney still had a shot in 2012... and Mitt Romney was a choirboy, compared to this piece of Human Detritus.
Men THINK they run [****] in their house. Women have always thought for themselves... even when it was illegal for them to do so.
American Women will sink Donald Trump in landslide numbers, and they'll do it because of one thing:
He embodies everything they have ever loathed about men: He's a "Neanderthal American Male On HGH" -and he's also over the age of sexual desirability.
This is how we American voters think. We vote "image" and "identity."
Issues are only side arguments we dudes use to bolster our positions in message board deadbates. My wife cuts through all that crap... and I actually LISTEN to my wife. She will never vote for someone like Trump... and we don't talk politics more than 2-3 days in an entire year. I'd never presume to coach her about how to vote- she has her own mind.... and I respect that.
People vote with their hearts.... and Donald Trump has lost waaaay too many women to ever win this election.
I'm going to be honest with you Clem, I'm disappointed in your tonality and rhetoric here. This not the Clem that I've known and read on here. I'll just leave it at that.
Hillary will win big with female voters. I agree with you there.
The days of them voting based on what their husbands want are soon to be over within the next couple decades.
They work more, the number of women who are the bread winners, or at least make just as much as their husbands is rising.
People always ask "well why Hillary then since she went after the accused"
That's a real obvious answer when you look at it from a women's perspective.
Women understand why Hillary did that because most of them have or would have done the same thing.
You're always gonna believe the love of your life FIRST before anybody. And if you don't, then that kinda means you truly weren't in love to begin with.
At the end of the day, Trump has nobody to blame but himself.
For here on out in this country, if you aren't pro women's rights, pro equal pay, pro-choice, well, good luck winning a presidential 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.”
I cannot speak to other mens wives, but in my case, who I vote for doesn't mean a thing to my wife, she'll vote for the person she finds to be the right choice.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
“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.”
It is good.. My mom followed my dad all the way... Dad worked at GM and was a union man. He also owned his own small business.. He wasn't the stanch Union guy who didn't understand the business of business.. But still, he went Dem almost exclusively
Mom followed right along.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
The days of them voting based on what their husbands want are soon to be over within the next couple decades.
They work more, the number of women who are the bread winners, or at least make just as much as their husbands is rising.
People always ask "well why Hillary then since she went after the accused"
That's a real obvious answer when you look at it from a women's perspective.
Women understand why Hillary did that because most of them have or would have done the same thing.
You're always gonna believe the love of your life FIRST before anybody. And if you don't, then that kinda means you truly weren't in love to begin with.
At the end of the day, Trump has nobody to blame but himself.
For here on out in this country, if you aren't pro women's rights, pro equal pay, pro-choice, well, good luck winning a presidential election.
Define equal pay.
If you mean that men and women, who work in the same field, work the same amount of hours, and do an equally good job should be paid the same, I agree. I support that and from my reading, that is pretty much the case.
If you mean that men and women should make the same amount of money, regardless of other factors, that is silly. It is well known that men enter higher-paying fields, on average, than women do. Men also work more hours, on average, than women do. Those two facts alone suggest that men will be paid more, on average, than women do and there is absolutely nothing unfair about that.
Two more ideas, one from each presidential debate:
1) In the first debate, Hillary made a roundabout accusation toward Donald when she said something to the effect of, "Donald thinks women should only get paid as much as men if they do as good of a job as men do." Again, paraphrasing, but what immediately jumped out to me is was yes, men and women should only get paid the same if they do an equivalent job!
I suspect it was a sort of trap, like if Donald points out this extremely obvious detail, he is liable to be called some nasty name because we all know what the retort would be ("You're sexist for not thinking women do as good of a job as men!") I would suggest that in some fields, women will perform better than men on average and in others, men will perform better than women on average. I think that is a fair and reasonable thing to suggest. My big thing is that people should be paid based on their skill, work ethic, performance, etc. and not based on their gender.
2) In the second debate Hillary made a comment about how women should not pay more than men for health insurance. Again going on memory here but I think that was the gist of it. I actually don't have a strong opinion on this and that seems reasonable enough. I'm just going to point out that for my entire adult life, I have paid more for auto insurance because I'm a male. I have as good of a driving record as anybody, and males are less likely to cause an accident than a female but the resulting claims tend to be bigger, resulting in a higher average cost to the insurance company to insure males, hence I pay more.
You see a similar thing in life insurance-- men have a lower life expectancy and thus pay more at the same age and same level of health. The idea of paying more for those (and other) types of insurance to account for the cost differences between sexes but then nullifying the extra cost for females in health insurance does irk me a little bit. I can go either way on this-- either account for the cost differences in all forms of insurance or none. I don't want to have the worst of both worlds.
File this one under "loose lips sink ships". Covert video of Democratic Election Commissioner Alan Schulkin. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of hidden/off-the-record conversations being recorded and used against people in this way, but as long as one side is doing it....
The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud” — including at the polls.
“He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Commissioner Alan Schulkin said in the undercover video recorded by a muckraker for conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.
“But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,’ ” he said in the bombshell tape.
“It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud . . . This is why I get more conservative as I get older.”
Schulkin didn’t hold back to the undercover journalist, who identified herself as a political consultant at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party on Dec. 16.
Not realizing he was being recorded, he broke with his own party’s position that voter-ID requirements hurt the poor and minorities.
Schulkin said he backed the IDs to prevent rampant fraud.
“The law says you can’t ask for anything. Which they really should be able to do,” Schulkin said, according to a copy of the video and transcript provided to The Post.
“I believe they should be able to do it,” he added.
The videographer asked point blank, “You think they should have voter ID in New York?”
Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”
Conservatives claim ID checks help curb voter fraud.
Liberal and civil-rights groups argue such rules discourage voting and discriminate against minorities and the poor.
“You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID . . . You go into a building you have to show them your ID,” Schulkin said.
While discussing the potential for fraud, Schulkin volunteered that in some parts of the city, “they bus people around to vote . . . They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”
Asked which neighborhoods, Schulkin said, “I don’t want to say.”
When the undercover mentions black and Hispanic neighborhoods, Schulkin responded, “Yeah . . . and Chinese, too.”
At another point in the conversation, he discussed potential absentee ballot fraud.
“Oh, there’s thousands of absentee ballots . . . I don’t know where they came from,” he said.
The undercover offered that “people can cover their faces” to shield their identity when voting, which triggered a conversation about burqas.
“The Muslims can do that, too. You don’t know who they are,” Schulkin said.
“I mean I know everything is done with good intentions, but a lot of bad results.”
Reached Monday night, Schulkin defended his videotaped remarks, with slight revisions.
“I should have said ‘potential fraud’ instead of ‘fraud,’ ” he said.
But he reiterated his support for a voter-ID requirement.
He recalled a woman asking him a lot of questions the night he was recorded.
“She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her,” he said.
The board has two commissioners — one a Democrat, one a Republican — from each borough.
So is wikileaks going to have any damning Podesta emails? They've released 5k emails so far and only 5 have been a little bad and two thathave discussed aliens with the Blink 182 lead singer.
So is wikileaks going to have any damning Podesta emails? They've released 5k emails so far and only 5 have been a little bad and two thathave discussed aliens with the Blink 182 lead singer.
I'm not sure I would say that "only 5 have been a little bad" but I get the point. They've been a letdown so far. We'll see what comes out in the rest of them but I don't have my hopes up.
Dude, you need to grow the heck up. Not sure how old you are but these types of comments are useless and immature and do not pose a solution to anything or offer substance to a presidential thread discussion.
Why? It is pointing out a double standard.
Also, when people continue to go on and on about Muslim terrorists but seem to forget that the terrorists of recent have been Americans or, they don't list mass shootings as acts of terror it seems a double standard. Why does that not fit into a Presidential campaign thread? Especially when one of our nominees is talking about things that are unconstitutional, vetting, racial profiling, violence in the US, the 2nd Amendment etc.
But, pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy of our outrage doesn't fall in line? Strange.
No. There is no reason to make every single thread on DT about skin color. It was your comment on skin color. Some of you try to hijack every thread and make it about racism. It's not only nonsense but disrespectful to those who begin meaningful threads.
Yeah, it's crazy to think that we have a Presidential candidate tell the elite she wants open borders and open trade and it's not even a top 5 talking point.
Hi John, Well, I know you had a good weekend! We've been working with the campaign folks to reschedule my interview with Secretary Clinton. I wanted to write you about some of the metrics that we are getting and let you know through placement on Facebook we can guarantee 1.5 million views in addition to Yahoo engagement which has been close to 1 million for my political interviews. I'd also like to do a separate piece of business through social media along the lines of "10 things you don't know about Hillary Clinton" that would showcase her personality and has a lot of viral potential. I know there is a lot of demands on her time, but we have been waiting patiently to schedule something and I'm sure we've been driving the campaign staff crazy, but the reach and engagement will be significant and I'm very much looking forward to having the opportunity to talk to her. I have been assured the campaign wants this as well. Can you help make this happen? I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks, John. Look forward to hearing from you. Best, Katie
Is this just a little bad? I don't think it is illegal but here is a Yahoo! news anchor, formerly with NBC, CBS, and ABC, working with the Clinton camp to create a propaganda video for Hillary. What do you tell people who think media is biased/rigged when they see stuff like that? There's actually quite a bit of this cooperation between the Democrats and media in these various email dumps.
*For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.
If true, this wouldn't just be 'a little bad', it would be an absolutely devastating bombshell. It would show that Hillary committed perjury on a number of different occasions (having deleted the emails herself). Of course, Hillary did not write this so it is legally just hearsay. Still very interesting (just don't expect to see it on CNN or MSNBC).
Yeah, it's crazy to think that we have a Presidential candidate tell the elite she wants open borders and open trade and it's not even a top 5 talking point.
Yeah, the media loves to get involved in political campaigns and the political campaigns love the attention. I think I posted here earlier this year about how Politico has had HRC staffers ghost-write for them. If you look at Donald's campaign, it's literally ran by the people of Fox News and Breitbart.
Yeah, it's crazy to think that we have a Presidential candidate tell the elite she wants open borders and open trade and it's not even a top 5 talking point.
I agree
While telling the people the opposite. Two sets of values, two sets of steel dragon will result in the American people getting screwed.
Men also work more hours, on average, than women do
Quick, Run and Hide..... LOL
That's not really what I see. But tell me where you got that information. I'm in the employment field and frankly, I don't see this being the case at all.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Trolling, to some degree possibly. 40 is an entertaining addition to this site. I don't think he takes any of this as seriously as some do as he enjoys the jab and counter punch.
I'm going to be honest with you Clem, I'm disappointed in your tonality and rhetoric here.
Sorry you feel that way. Not sorry for what I said. I'm only human like everyone else here... and I've never claimed objectivity where this bag of dirt is concerned.
Buffett Calls Trump’s Bluff and Releases His Tax Data
By PATRICIA COHENOCT. 10, 2016
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Warren E. Buffett, the chief of Berkshire Hathaway, said in a letter released on Monday, “I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944.” Credit Charlie Riedel/Associated Press
Warren E. Buffett is not running for president. But on Monday, Mr. Buffett, the billionaire investor, volunteered more detailed information about his income taxes than Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, ever has.
Mr. Buffett released the information after essentially being called out by Mr. Trump during Sunday night’s presidential debate.
Acknowledging for the first time that he had avoided paying federal income taxes for years by claiming nearly a billion dollars in losses in 1995, Mr. Trump then tried to shift attention to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, accusing some of her wealthy supporters of exploiting tax laws to their own advantage.
“Many of her friends took bigger deductions,” Mr. Trump said. “Warren Buffett took a massive deduction.”
Actually, he did not.
“I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944,” Mr. Buffett wrote in a letter released Monday.
“My 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11,563,931,” he revealed. “My deductions totaled $5,477,694.” About two-thirds of those represented charitable contributions, he said. Most of the rest were related to Mr. Buffett’s state income tax payments.
Mr. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and one of the richest men in the world, went on to say: “My federal income tax for the year was $1,845,557. Returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates.”
Last year, Mr. Buffett paid about 16 percent of his reported income in federal income taxes.
“I have copies of all 72 of my returns,” Mr. Buffett added, “and none uses a carry forward,” the provision that allows taxpayers like Mr. Trump to use losses from one year to avoid paying personal federal income taxes both on some previous tax returns and in future years.
Mr. Trump had previously claimed, without producing any evidence, that Mr. Buffett declared $873 million in losses.
As it turns out, the charitable contributions that Mr. Buffett did deduct from his income make up just a tiny portion of the more than $2.85 billion he donated to charity last year, he said. The reason is that the tax code limits the amount that an individual can claim in charitable deductions. Mr. Buffett, 86, has pledged to give most of his $65 billion fortune away.
By contrast, Mr. Trump’s own charitable foundations — and his claims about his personal contributions — have come under scrutiny. Last week the New York attorney general ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop soliciting donations in the state because it lacked the required registration. And many of the donations that Mr. Trump had publicly boasted of turned out to have come from other people’s pockets, like those who had given money to the Trump Foundation.
Three pages of Mr. Trump’s income tax returns from 1995 obtained by The New York Times show that he claimed $916 million in losses.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to release his federal income tax returns, defying the practice of presidential candidates going back four decades. He and his campaign have offered varying reasons, but the excuse most frequently invoked is that he is under audit by the Internal Revenue Service. The I.R.S. said that an audit does not prevent Mr. Trump from making his returns public.
Mr. Buffett made the same point. “I have been audited by the I.R.S. multiple times and am currently being audited,” he wrote in the letter. “I have no problem in releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump — at least he would have no legal problem.”
The Trump campaign had no comment on Mr. Buffett’s letter.
Mr. Buffett’s tax strategies were drawn into the debate when Mr. Trump blamed Mrs. Clinton for not doing more when she was a senator to fix the tax code and close loopholes that favored Wall Street and wealthy campaign donors. Mrs. Clinton, who has pledged to raise taxes on rich Americans, while Mr. Trump’s plans would sharply reduce them, responded that a Republican-controlled Congress had repeatedly blocked such efforts.
Mr. Buffett declined to comment further on his letter. George Soros, another billionaire entrepreneur who has supported the Clinton campaign, was also singled out by Mr. Trump for claiming outsize deductions of $1.5 billion on his taxes. A spokesman for Mr. Soros, Michael Vachon, said he had no comment.
Mr. Buffett has frequently criticized tax laws and loopholes for enabling him to pay a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary. The so-called Buffett rule, which has been endorsed by Mrs. Clinton, would require people who earn more than $5 million to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.
Mr. Buffett did concede that his tax payments have, at times, been much smaller. In 1944, he admitted, when he was just 13, “I owed only $7 in tax that year.”
