[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Scaff]

There are two degrees of separation between myself and Adolph Hitler, my mother and Helene Mayer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

Which has nothing to do with anything, unless you are attempting to claim Trump has never met him?

You see your comment...

"Do you really want to continue to hitch your wagon to a such a wild horse running loose in another people's nation? Why, really why would you do that?"

...can be applied to either candidate in regard to this, yet you focus (in detail) only on one.

 

[Dotini]

Which has nothing to do with anything, unless you are attempting to claim Trump has never met him?

Met who? Please tell me all about it.

I once met Bill Clinton, and held a brief conversation with him. I can say the same thing about Jim Hall, Arie Luyendyk, Dan Gurney, Nigel Mansell, Emerson Fittipaldi, Jack Brabham and Eric Haga, a convicted murderer.

 

[Scaff]

Met who? Please tell me all about it.

I once met Bill Clinton, and held a brief conversation with him. I can say the same thing about Jim Hall, Arie Luyendyk, Dan Gurney, Nigel Mansell, Emerson Fittipaldi and Eric Haga, a convicted murderer.

Oh dear.

 

[Dotini]

Oh dear.

People are different from each other in kind, quality and character. You can choose those with whom you continue to associate and publicly support. Trump is not a criminal under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI, IRS and NYPD like Hillary is.

 

[Scaff]

People are different from each other in kind, quality and character. You can choose those with whom you continue to associate and publicly support.

None of which changes the fact that you appear to be happy to condemn one based on an association and not another.

Personally I believe that both have a lot to explain and answer in regard to Epstein, you appear to think it only makes one unsuitable (despite the fact that he is currently the only one who is subject to any form of legal action in regard to that association).

 

[Dotini]

None of which changes the fact that you appear to be happy to condemn one based on an association and not another.

Personally I believe that both have a lot to explain and answer in regard to Epstein, you appear to think it only makes one unsuitable (despite the fact that he is currently the only one who is subject to any form of legal action in regard to that association).

I was not aware that Trump was an associate or client of Epstein. If he is or was, I want to know about it. Will you tell what you know, please?

Hillary is the one under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI, IRS and NYPD. Trump is not.\

EDIT:
I see now the link you edited into post 7139 after I had replied and passed on to the the next page. If there is any credibility to it, I would hope to see it brought up by Hillary and the mainstream media. In the US - unlike some other places - we try not to abide pedophiles.

 

[Scaff]

I was not aware that Trump was an associate or client of Epstein. If he is or was, I want to know about it. Will you tell what you know, please?

Hillary is the one under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI, IRS and NYPD. Trump is not.

Trumps own words...

"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump once said about the convicted sex offender. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Trumps contact details (numerous ones) were in Epstein's address book.

Epstein has acknowledged (under oath) that Trump has attended his parties.

Etc, etc (but given that you seem to have already ignored one link) and Trump is currently under investigation, around 75 of them in total.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...ing-during-their-breathless-fbi-letter/214211

As I have said, both of them have serious questions to answer on a range of matter, both are under investigation and neither should be in a position to hold the highest office in the US.

 

[Dotini]

As I have said, both of them have serious questions to answer on a range of matter, both are under investigation and neither should be in a position to hold the highest office in the US.

We are playing phone tag. Please see my post above.

I know Trump is under investigation, but I am not aware that any are of a criminal nature.

Thanks to the colossal failure of both parties to restrain their wars, spending and disregard for the middle class, both of the unqualified people you mention ARE in a position to be president. "should be" happens only in another reality, another universe. Not here. The question is how to deal with it.

 

[Milouse]

To describe what happened to Bernie as simply "politics as usual", or the DNC "running the system as it sees fit" is a poor way of describing it.

You can turn that in every way you want, in the end, Sanders clearly choose who he call to vote for, and that's not Trump, and nobody can suspect him to be pro-Hillary.

http://truepundit.com/breaking-bomb...ldren-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/

[...]

NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

• Money laundering
• Child exploitation
• Sex crimes with minors (children)
• Perjury
• Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
• Obstruction of justice
• Other felony crimes

truepundit, really?
A "news" website with "true" in the domain name, i'd like to trust it blindly.

Wait...

Ranked as "CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE" on mediabiasfactcheck:
"Though they do occasionally publish a legitimate story, most are conspiracies. This source also currently has a very strong anti-Hillary Clinton bias. Most articles have an anonymous author. Simply not trustworthy."

The FBI seems to start looking into some similar stuff:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=Feed: reuters/topNews (News / US / Top News)

 

[Dotini]

Agreed that Hillary controls her public persona, and anonymous statements lacking any actual evidence are anathema. But for how much longer can you so righteously defend and internationally campaign for Mrs Clinton when we are confronted with clear signals that US law enforcement and intelligence officers at many levels and jurisdictions have grave concerns over her character and fitness for office? The following article plainly says that if the FBI fails to indict in timely fashion, NYPD will itself release bombshell emails linking Clinton to child sex crimes. Do you really want to continue to hitch your wagon to a such a wild horse running loose in another people's nation? Why, really why would you do that?

http://truepundit.com/breaking-bomb...ldren-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence “to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources told True Pundit.

NYPD sources said Clinton’s “crew” also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.

-------------------

NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

• Money laundering
• Child exploitation
• Sex crimes with minors (children)
• Perjury
• Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
• Obstruction of justice
• Other felony crimes

NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

------------------------

The new emails contain travel documents and itineraries indicating Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Weiner and multiple members of Congress and other government officials accompanied convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on his Boeing 727 on multiple occasions to his private island in the U.S Virgin Islands, sources said. Epstein’s island has also been dubbed Orgy Island or Sex Slave Island where Epstein allegedly pimps out underage girls and boys to international dignitaries.

Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein’s guest on at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

 

[McLaren]

You can turn that in every way you want, in the end, Sanders clearly choose who he call to vote for, and that's not Trump, and nobody can suspect him to be pro-Hillary.

Irrelevant. Had things been done the way democracy is supposed to work, there's a much better chance he would never have been put in that position, which is the point.

He has been pro-Hillary since he got cheated, & that has only caused many of his supporters to abandon him; they wanted him because he wasn't Hillary. The emails revealed describing Bernie only make his decision to speak up for her campaign look worse bc they clearly have no respect for him. The latest batch called him an "Obama betryayer & false promiser". That he needs to be "ground to a pulp".

It's sad in the political world how quickly your enemies become your best friends if they turn for you.

 

[Biggles]

Irrelevant. Had things been done the way democracy is supposed to work, there's a much better chance he would never have been put in that position, which is the point.

He has been pro-Hillary since he got cheated, & that has only caused many of his supporters to abandon him; they wanted him because he wasn't Hillary. The emails revealed describing Bernie only make his decision to speak up for her campaign look worse bc they clearly have no respect for him. The latest batch called him an "Obama betryayer & false promiser". That he needs to be "ground to a pulp".

It's sad in the political world how quickly your enemies become your best friends if they turn for you.

It's NOT "sad in the political world how quickly your enemies become your best friends if they turn for you" - it's inevitable & understandable. Your political opponents aren't your "enemies" - they're your political opponents. It's NOT sad, for instance, that HRC became Secretary of State after being defeated by Obama. On the other hand, Trump openly, publicly, personally & inappropriately insulted most of his political opponents, implying, for example, that Cruz's wife was ugly. It is a bit sad, or perhaps cringe-worthy, to see Cruz stumping for Trump.

The DNC does it's best to rig the primaries - not a shock, so does the RNC. You only have to look at the US primary system to see that it's cobbled together in a way that makes little democratic, or even rational sense. HRC did not invent this system, she only sought to use it to her advantage, just like every other candidate does. The Democratic party really should look at making the system more transparent & "democratic" - perhaps if Clinton loses there will be serious pressure to do this.

 

[McLaren]

It's NOT "sad in the political world how quickly your enemies become your best friends if they turn for you" - it's inevitable & understandable. Your political opponents aren't your "enemies" - they're your political opponents. It's NOT sad, for instance, that HRC became Secretary of State after being defeated by Obama. On the other hand, Trump openly, publicly, personally & inappropriately insulted most of his political opponents, implying, for example, that Cruz's wife was ugly. It is a bit sad, or perhaps cringe-worthy, to see Cruz stumping for Trump.

You find it acceptable for Bernie to get dragged through mud and insulted by Hillary's campaign, but find issue with Cruz supporting Trump despite Cruz originally and for a long while, refusing to support him?

Let's try to remember the media calling Hillary and Obama as a heated battle many times. Obama went after Bill and Hillary said, "You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has always been a pattern." She would later say while she was fighting Republicans, Obama, "was practicing law and representing his contributor Tony Rezko in his slum-landlord business in inner city Chicago." Rezko was indicted for business fraud and peddling. Obama retailiated that she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart while he was working as a community organizer. At one point when Hillary said Bill had no influence in her campaign, Obama quipped, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes".

The DNC does it's best to rig the primaries - not a shock, so does the RNC. You only have to look at the US primary system to see that it's cobbled together in a way that makes little democratic, or even rational sense. HRC did not invent this system, she only sought to use it to her advantage, just like every other candidate does. The Democratic party really should look at making the system more transparent & "democratic" - perhaps if Clinton loses there will be serious pressure to do this.

The DNC rigged the primary, but it's ok because the RNC does it, too.

That's why the RNC ended up with Trump of all candidates?

The emails leaked flat out show immediate preference for her despite the fact the DNC is supposed to be neutral. Hillary would have raised hell on earth if she caught the DNC polling for Obama before a candidate was chosen.

 

[huskeR32]

I was not aware that Trump was an associate or client of Epstein. If he is or was, I want to know about it. Will you tell what you know, please?

I know Trump is under investigation, but I am not aware that any are of a criminal nature.

Um, the whole "Trump raped a 13-year-old" thing? Yeah, that allegedly happened at an Epstein party.

 

[DDastardly00]

"Clinton misappropriates funds from her foundation". Actually, the Clinton Foundation has a pretty good record & has done a lot of good in the world. However, I don't doubt that the Clintons have benefited personally from it. It's the way things are.

I'm tired of appearing to defend HRC. It's not a question of her being a great candidate, it is, as Sam Harris articulates quite clearly, a question of Trump being much, much worse.

I don't agree with Sam Harris that Trump is much, much worse. I think Hillary is the far worse candidate of the two. Anyone else not named Hillary Clinton would have been forced to step down when the first FBI investigation commenced.

As bad as Trump is, he would be blocked by his own party if went off the rails on something they didn't agree with.

-Hillary compromised our national security
-Hillary took bribes from foreign countries, quid pro quo
-Hillary broke campaign finance laws
-Hillary broke campaign coordination laws

I won't even bother mentioning the Clinton Foundation allegations of fraud, money laundering which are currently under a 2nd FBI investigation.

Sam Harris, while entertaining, is completely out of his mind thinking that Hillary is the better choice of the two. Hillary Clinton is too compromised as a candidate to consider voting for, she should have stepped down and let Bernie run with the nomination when there was still time.

 

[huskeR32]

Anyone else not named Hillary Clinton would have been forced to step down when the first FBI investigation commenced.

You're seriously suggesting that a person would be barred from public office simply because an investigation had been opened? Before that investigation had even run its course or found any evidence of wrongdoing?

As bad as Trump is, he would be blocked by his own party if went off the rails on something they didn't agree with.

We have ample evidence already that this isn't the case.

Numerous GOP figures have already shown the cowardice with which they will handle Trump when they rushed to microphones and "denounced" his various racist or misogynist comments but refused to actually withdraw their support and endorsements.

It's clear that, out of fear of angering the Republican base (and therefore facing a likely loss next time they run for re-election), GOP Congress members aren't going to do much of anything to keep Trump in line.

 

[Dotini]

Um, the whole "Trump raped a 13-year-old" thing? Yeah, that allegedly happened at an Epstein party.

Odd that the accusation surfaces just now. Who makes the accusation? Let's follow it and see where it goes.

 

[huskeR32]

Odd that the accusation surfaces just now. Who makes the accusation? Let's follow it and see where it goes.

The case was originally filed in California back in April.

 

[DDastardly00]

You're seriously suggesting that a person would be barred from public office simply because an investigation had been opened? Before that investigation had even run its course or found any evidence of wrongdoing?

Did I say the word "Barred" anywhere? No, I said "forced to step down as the candidate", which is entirely different. Do I really have to explain the difference? This is when a party puts maximum pressure on their own candidate to voluntarily step down and end their campaign.

 

[Biggles]

You find it acceptable for Bernie to get dragged through mud and insulted by Hillary's campaign, but find issue with Cruz supporting Trump despite Cruz originally and for a long while, refusing to support him?

Let's try to remember the media calling Hillary and Obama as a heated battle many times. Obama went after Bill and Hillary said, "You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has always been a pattern." She would later say while she was fighting Republicans, Obama, "was practicing law and representing his contributor Tony Rezko in his slum-landlord business in inner city Chicago." Rezko was indicted for business fraud and peddling. Obama retailiated that she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart while he was working as a community organizer. At one point when Hillary said Bill had no influence in her campaign, Obama quipped, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes".


The DNC rigged the primary, but it's ok because the RNC does it, too.

That's why the RNC ended up with Trump of all candidates?

The emails leaked flat out show immediate preference for her despite the fact the DNC is supposed to be neutral. Hillary would have raised hell on earth if she caught the DNC polling for Obama before a candidate was chosen.

It's definitely not OK for the DNC or the RNC to try & rig the primaries, & the fact that one party does it does not excuse the other party. The RNC ended up with Trump in spite of its best efforts. The primary process is controlled by the parties - it's an important part of the democratic process in the US, but it's clearly not "neutral" & never has been ... but Clinton did not invent the system.

I don't "find issue" with Cruz supporting Trump ... it's politics, it's a political calculation, but it is a bit "sad". I don't recall Hillary personally insulting Bernie Sanders or insulting his wife. Members of her campaign attacked him politically? Of course. Obama attacked Hillary for being on the Walmart board of directors? Fair game. Hillary attacking Obama for representing a "slum landlord"? That's politics.

What Trump has said is on a completely different level - about women, about "the blacks', about Mexicans, Muslims, about Megyn Kelly, about Cruz's wife, about Rand Paul's appearance, Marco Rubio's stature - it goes on & on. I've been following politics a long time - I've never seen anything like it before ... ever.

I don't agree with Sam Harris that Trump is much, much worse.

Fair enough. It's certainly a problematic choice. As I said earlier - it would have been fascinating to see how this election would have played out if Bernie Sanders had gone up against Trump.

 

[huskeR32]

Did is say the word "Barred" anywhere? No, I said "forced to step down as the candidate", which is entirely different.

Both suggest the candidate would be forced out, by the party, against their will.

There isn't any meaningful difference in this context.

 

[DDastardly00]

The case was originally filed in California back in April.

And promptly thrown out by the judge, no victim, no evidence. It's the work of the work of ex-Jerry Springer producer, Al Taylor, who tried to sell the story to networks for over a million dollars and has a history of similar stunts in the past. The address, filed by the Jane Doe listed an abandoned property and the victim never showed. It was re-filed as a civil suit. Anyone can file a civil suit, doesn't mean there is any merit. It's a work of fiction to counter Bill Clinton's involvement with Epstein and his documented 26 'logged' flights on the Lolita Express. You're still peddling this trash?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo

Here are the flight logs:

Oh but Trump attended a party with Epstein back in 1994....so did a lot of NY elite, are they all pedophiles too?

 

[Milouse]

As bad as Trump is, he would be blocked by his own party if went off the rails on something they didn't agree with.

The party that already set the train Trump in the first place?

 

[DK]

Giuliani knew that the FBI were going to re-open the Clinton investigation days before it became public.

If you don't want to give CNN a click because "MAINSTREAM MEDIA GET OUT REEEEEEEE!", hear it straight from the horse's mouth:

 

[Milouse]

It's a work of fiction to counter Bill Clinton's involvement with Epstein and his documented 26 'logged' flights on the Lolita Express.

We can't blame the democrats to have tried to even use that, they probably saw that this story could backfire and isn't worth using.
And the timing of events doesn't match, this story started last spring. You're making an affirmation without evidence.

 

[huskeR32]

And promptly thrown out by the judge, no victim, no evidence.

It was thrown out on procedural grounds, not on merit.

Mind, I'm not saying there's any merit there. I don't know, that's not for me to decide.

I will say, though, that there isn't any more proof of the similar allegations against the Clintons, though your skepticism seems oddly suspended in that case.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

And promptly thrown out by the judge, no victim, no evidence. It's the work of the work of ex-Jerry Springer producer, Al Taylor, who tried to sell the story to networks for over a million dollars and has a history of similar stunts in the past. The address, filed by the Jane Doe listed an abandoned property and the victim never showed. It was re-filed as a civil suit. Anyone can file a civil suit, doesn't mean there is any merit. It's a work of fiction to counter Bill Clinton's involvement with Epstein and his documented 26 'logged' flights on the Lolita Express. You're still peddling this trash?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/ Here are the flight logs:

Oh but Trump attended a party with Epstein back in 1994....so did a lot of NY elite, are they all pedophiles too?

It's amazing how in this instance, it's a "work of fiction", but you consider the Clinton/Lauer situation fact.

Giuliani knew that the FBI were going to re-open the Clinton investigation days before it became public.

Never trust a grown man who wears a bow tie outside of black tie events.

 

[DDastardly00]

We can't blame the democrats to have tried to even use that, they probably saw that this story could backfire and isn't worth using.
And the timing of events doesn't match, this story started last spring. You're making an affirmation without evidence.

Timing? Alicia Machado was planned by Podesta in Oct 2015, long before Trump was even being taken seriously as winning the nomination.

 

[DDastardly00]

It was thrown out on procedural grounds, not on merit.

Mind, I'm not saying there's any merit there. I don't know, that's not for me to decide

I will say, though, that there isn't any more proof of the similar allegations against the Clintons, though your skepticism seems oddly suspended in that case.

But that still hasn't stopped you from posting it twice. No proof? You mean other than Bill Clinton flying on the Lolita express 26 times and the flight logs to prove it posted above and the Epstein court case detailing what went on those flight of course, but hey Trump attended a party in 1994....

It's amazing how in this instance, it's a "work of fiction", but you consider the Clinton/Lauer situation fact.

I don't consider it fact, no video, no proof, but given Hillary's history I think it's entirely possible that it happened. The Trump accusation has no merit, like I said anyone can file a civil suit. If you have any evidence that it is not a work of fiction then I'll take a look at it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And promptly thrown out by the judge, no victim, no evidence. It's the work of the work of ex-Jerry Springer producer, Al Taylor, who tried to sell the story to networks for over a million dollars and has a history of similar stunts in the past. The address, filed by the Jane Doe listed an abandoned property and the victim never showed. It was re-filed as a civil suit. Anyone can file a civil suit, doesn't mean there is any merit. It's a work of fiction to counter Bill Clinton's involvement with Epstein and his documented 26 'logged' flights on the Lolita Express. You're still peddling this trash?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo

Here are the flight logs:

Oh but Trump attended a party with Epstein back in 1994....so did a lot of NY elite, are they all pedophiles too?

Surely if the insinuation (as I read it above) is that Clinton was involved in some kind of mid-air pedo-fest then, as it all happened within US jurisdiction, there would be a lot more made of it than has been?