WillV wrote:Srellim, well said here. I think you categorized this perfectly to fit many independents; I fit right in to what you have said about right-leaning fiscally but left-leaning socially.

Fiscal responsibility my A$$

Donald Trump’s plans would add $5.3 trillion to the national debt

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... li=BBnbfcL

Telcoman

telco - directly from the article you linked to:

"...Hillary Clinton's plans, by comparison, would only increase the debt by $200 billion..."

For the vast majority of Americans, any increase is not acceptable. We want candidates and a federal government committed to balancing the books and putting us on a path toward paying down our existing national debt. You can preach all you want that Clinton is more palatable than Trump but they both leave a truly bitter, sour taste in our mouths.

srellim234 wrote:...You can preach all you want that Clinton is more palatable than Trump but they both leave a truly bitter, sour taste in our mouths.

So did Bill!

Not exactly. For the most part Bill left a bitter, sour taste in Monica's mouth.

Well The New York Times is one big media outfit endorsing Hillary

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/h ... li=BBnb7Kz

Hillary Clinton for President

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

"In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.

Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.

The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march. In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity.

The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.

Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.

Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. As a candidate, she has struggled to step back from a pointillist collection of policy proposals to reveal the full pattern of her record. That is a weakness of her campaign, and a perplexing one, for the pattern is clear. It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.

Mrs. Clinton’s record of service to children, women and families has spanned her adult life. One of her boldest acts as first lady was her 1995 speech in Beijing declaring that women’s rights are human rights. After a failed attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system, she threw her support behind legislation to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than eight million lower-income young people. This year, she rallied mothers of gun-violence victims to join her in demanding comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and tighter reins on gun sales.

After opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention. Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position.

Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-free college and small-business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans. They would also depend on passage by Congress.

That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her. Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle.

When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good. Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters.

Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.

Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial. She led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran, which eventually pushed it to the table for talks over its nuclear program, and in 2012, she helped negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.

Mrs. Clinton led efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar, persuading its junta to adopt political reforms. She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt. Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to reset relations with Russia, though far from successful, was a sensible effort to improve interactions with a rivalrous nuclear power.

Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, governed during what now looks like an optimistic and even gentle era. The end of the Cold War and the advance of technology and trade appeared to be awakening the world’s possibilities rather than its demons. Many in the news media, and in the country, and in that administration, were distracted by the scandal du jour — Mr. Clinton’s impeachment — during the very period in which a terrorlst threat was growing. We are now living in a world darkened by the realization of that threat and its many consequences.

Mrs. Clinton’s service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday.

Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work."

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Trump on the other hand created a scam Trump University, has a extensive record of business failures including cheating small businessmen by not paying them for their work.
He also has used his Trump Foundation Charity for personal gain.
His refusal to produce his tax returns would most likely show that he neither pays taxes and fails to contribute to charities as he falsely claims.

Not fit to be POTUS

Telcoman

Some more on Trump and his deplorable treatment of women.

Former Inquirer reporter recalls that time Trump called her the c-word

By Jennifer Lin
September 29, 2016 at 10:00 am

http://billypenn.com/2016/09/29/former- ... her-a-c-t/
Update: 5:45 p.m.

“Hold for Mr. Trump.”

It was Monday morning, April 18, 1988. I was the financial correspondent in New York City for The Philadelphia Inquirer, working out of a one-woman bureau at 80 Wall Street. That day, I had a business story about a developer-car dealer from Rochester, N.Y., who was a minor character in a drama playing out between Trump and entertainer Merv Griffin over the ownership of Resorts International.

Trump controlled the casino company through a special class of stock and wanted to buy out other investors for $15 a share.

The week Trump made his offer, the Rochester developer, Dale Scutti, was in Atlantic City. He had sinus problems and took long walks on the Boardwalk. Scutti made his millions in car dealerships, at one time owning 14 across the country. Eyeing the Resorts casino and unfinished Taj Mahal, he concluded that the company was worth a lot more than what Trump was offering. Back home, he started buying Resorts stock and through Wall Street channels in mergers, brought the situation to the attention of Griffin.

Griffin, the mega-millionaire Hollywood producer behind Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune, wanted to get into gaming. He surprised Trump by making a counter-offer of $35 a share for Resorts, and quickly upped the ante by a buck.

The situation got ugly and after a month of fighting, the moguls made a deal: Trump would get the unfinished Taj Mahal, Griffin would get everything else, and investors would get $36 a share.

My story that morning made the point that if it wasn’t for this unknown investor from upstate New York, shareholders might not be earning more than twice what Trump originally offered. Scutti had told me he thought Trump was trying to scare shareholders into accepting his offer with threats of bankruptcy and warnings that he was the only one capable of completing the over-budget Taj Mahal project.

In the article, I wrote that Trump could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman said the man’s comments were “categorically untrue.”

The story ran below the fold in the business news section with the headline: How a Curious Visitor Beat Trump at the Casino Game.

And now I was holding for Mr. Trump.

There was no hello. But there was yelling, lots of yelling.

The word “s***” was used repeatedly as a noun and adjective.

I had s*** for brains.

I worked for a s*** newspaper.

What sort of s*** did I write.

Before I could reply, he hung up.

Then he called my editor in Philadelphia, Craig Stock. Now it was Craig’s turn to “Hold for Mr. Trump.”

Craig was treated to the same Trumpian wordplay, but got an added treat. Trump referred to me as “that ****.”

Craig, a calm Iowan, asked Trump what was wrong with the story. He explained that The Inquirer would run a correction if the paper had made an error.

Trump snapped that he didn’t read the story.

“No one reads the story,” the 41-year-old blustered. “I read the headline and I didn’t like it.”

Craig suggested that he read the story, then call him back if there were any problems.

He did not hear back from Trump.

Update: Through his campaign Donald Trump denied using the c-word when talking about Lin. Senior Advisor David Urban provided this statement: “This accusation is categorically false. I find it incredibly coincidental that this person’s crystal clear recollection of one sentence, one word, spoken nearly thirty years ago just happens to coincide with Mr. Trump’s surge in Pennsylvania. This is nothing more than an avowed liberal reporter who is trying to exploit Mr. Trump’s reputation as click-bait for her tabloid stories.”

Jennifer Lin spent 31 years as a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer, including stints in the paper’s bureaus in New York; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing. Her book, Shanghai Faithful: Betrayal and Forgiveness in a Chinese Christian Family, will be released on March 17.

Trump is some piece of s#it

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:Some more on Trump and his deplorable treatment of women.

Trump is some piece of s#it

Telcoman

Are you really going to try to bash Trump for something he said decades earlier, just to try and paint Clinton as a feminist defender? What about Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones? Or Kathleen Willey? Or Gennifer Flowers? “Hillary likes to call Donald out for shaming women, calling them names, repeating the names he’s called them. But let’s remember one thing: Hillary Clinton has called me a bimbo for the last 19 years,” Kathleen Willey said. “It started years ago in Arkansas. So she doesn’t have a whole lot of room to talk about who’s calling women names.” “They all called us bimbos. They called us sluts. They called us whores,” Willey said. “If you ask somebody a word comparison, you put our names up there and you ask somebody a word to describe us, it’s probably going to be, unfortunately, ‘bimbos’ — instead of we’re victims of Bill Clinton’s. And [Hillary Clinton’s] OK with that. She just hasn’t called off her dogs when it comes to that.”

If Trump's so called deplorable treatment of women is an issue for you, then how can you even remotely consider Hillary? Oh wait, I get it. Dems get a free pass on despicable behavior.

Why do I have to pay taxes?
Trump campaign reels after disclosure of 1995 tax returns

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Donald Trump’s campaign, reeling Sunday after a report that the business mogul may not have paid taxes for as many as 18 years after declaring a $916 million loss on his 1995 returns, mounted a vigorous defense by calling the revelation proof of the Republican presidential nominee’s “genius.”

A New York Times report late Saturday showed how Trump had used byzantine tax laws to cancel out income taxes after his real estate and casino empire nearly collapsed in the early 1990s, and the Times calculated that the resulting deductions may have allowed him to pay no federal income taxes for 18 years.

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Trump’s leading surrogates, fanned out across the Sunday political talk shows to defend their candidate — but they did not dispute the Times’s findings, nor has Trump’s campaign.

“He’s a genius — absolute genius,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week.” “This was a perfectly legal application of the tax code, and he would’ve been a fool not to take advantage of it.”

The revelation about Trump’s taxes capped perhaps the most difficult week of his general election campaign — from his shaky debate performance and drop in the polls to his feud with a former Latina beauty queen over her weight gain and erratic 3 a.m. tweets Friday, to his unfounded speculation in a rambling speech Saturday night that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton may have cheated on her husband.

“What we’re seeing is somebody who’s blowing himself apart in real time,” said Peter Wehner, a strategist and scholar who served in the administrations of the last three Republican presidents. “It’s a pretty extraordinary thing to see. It’s a political death wish, as if at some deep level he doesn’t want to be president.”

Wehner added, “It’s gnawing on him that he could become what he has contempt for, and that is a loser.”

Mo Elleithee, a Democratic strategist who runs Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, said, “Political operatives and strategists are going to study this week for generations as the textbook case of self-sabotage.”

The Times, which obtained Trump’s 1995 tax records, reported that Trump may have taken advantage of special rules for real estate investors that legally allowed him to use his $916 million loss to offset $50 million a year in future taxable income for as many as 18 years.

Trump’s year-by-year returns would show how much he paid in federal income taxes, but he has refused to release them. For decades now, all presidential nominees have released years worth of tax returns, including Clinton.

The Clinton campaign and its supporters moved Sunday to exploit the tax discovery to underscore their central argument against Trump, which is that he is unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be president, and to argue that he took advantage of rules that ordinary workers cannot.

Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said Trump has “spun out of control.”

“We see Donald Trump is having to defend the fact that he may not have paid taxes for 20 years, which is something most Americans don’t have the option to do,” Mook said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has sparred with Trump over his taxes and business record, issued a caustic statement on Sunday about the Republican nominee.

“Trump is a billion-dollar loser who won’t release his taxes because they’ll expose him as a spoiled, rich brat who lost the millions he inherited from his father,” Reid said. He went on to call Trump “a racist, incompetent failure who managed to lose a billion dollars in a boom year.”

Trump’s surrogates offered a different assessment. Giuliani and Christie each used the word “genius” to describe Trump’s management of his taxes.

Christie, who chairs Trump’s presidential transition project, proclaimed on “Fox News Sunday” that “this is actually a very, very good story for Donald Trump.”

“What it shows is what an absolute mess the federal tax code is, and that’s why Donald Trump is the person best positioned to fix it,” the governor said. “There’s no one who’s showed more genius in their way to move around the tax code.”

Asked by Fox anchor Chris Wallace whether there were any apologies for Trump’s apparent avoidance of paying taxes, as reported by the Times, Christie was unrepentant.

“Oh, for gosh sakes, no apologies for complying with the law, and taking a bow for the fact that he has said well before this story came out that we should change the tax laws,” Christie said.

Trump’s tax plan — which would cut rates for high-income people like him and eliminate the “carried interest” loophole that benefits hedge fund managers, among other things — does not address the rule he may have taken advantage of. He and his campaign have not yet said whether Trump plans to eliminate or change it.

Giuliani had a fiery exchange with host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union,” in which the former mayor argued that Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to exploit every tax advantage available to him. The two men often shouted over each other, with Giuliani insisting that Trump could have been sued if he had not applied his 1995 loss to future tax returns.

“There are not very many smart businessmen who don’t take advantage of the tax — legal tax laws that are there,” Giuliani said. “And if they are, then they’re not very good businessmen, and no one wants to go into business with them and they don’t have very good lawyers, and they don’t have very good accountants.”

Central to Trump’s candidacy has been the idea of him as a successful businessman. Political analysts said the revelation that he declared a nearly $1 billion loss when his real estate company almost collapsed threatens to undercut his credibility in business.

“People can look at this little bit of evidence and now question his business acumen,” Elleithee said. Secondly, he said, it is an example of Trump benefitting personally from a system he has railed against. “His whole argument is that there are too many people in the establishment that are using the system to screw the little guy.”

Clinton’s supporters held up Trump’s apparent ma­nipu­la­tion of tax laws to avoid paying taxes as an example of inherent unfairness in the tax code, which allows billionaires to use loopholes that they said were unavailable to ordinary workers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on CNN that this is “exactly why so many millions of Americans are frustrated, they’re angry, they’re disgusted.”

“You’ve got the middle-class people working longer hours for low wages — they pay their taxes, they support their schools, they support their infrastructure, they support the military,” Sanders said. He added, “Trump goes around and says: ‘Hey, I’m worth billions! I’m a successful businessman! And I don’t pay any taxes. But you — you make 15 bucks an hour — you pay the taxes, not me.’”

While Giuliani and Christie were aggressive in their defense of Trump, some of his other supporters were at a loss for how best to help him, saying the Trump campaign had offered no guidance. “We do get pretty regular emails and briefings on things when they are happening, but we have not, at least I have not, on the tax issue,” said Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).

Kevin Madden, a GOP strategist who helped guide 2012 nominee Mitt Romney through his own political problems related to tax returns, said of Trump: “The looming threat of the tax returns issue has always been that Trump’s refusal to disclose makes it look like he has something to hide and that, ultimately, any disclosure could blow a hole in his appeal to the average taxpayer. Well, the threat has now become a reality.”

Sean Sullivan and Robert Costa contributed to this report.

Telcoman

telco - We're all adults and can click on a link to read the huge amount of text you are cluttering this place up with. Please just post the link and your opinion and skip the huge cut and paste jobs.

That said, what bothers me more is that because of this type of thing Trump claims he knows more than anyone about tax laws and he's the only one that can fix them. More blatant lies from "The Donald." Accounting and taxes are not his area of expertise and he should acknowledge that he has just surrounded himself with a great team of attorneys and tax accountants that look out for his best interests financially. I'm pretty sure he has very little to do with his taxes other than signing the forms.

For him to claim he is the only one who can fix it is also either a blatant lie or childishly ignorant. He is NOT the only one who can fix it. He is not running for Dictator of the United States no matter how much he wants to believe that. Fixing it requires those hundreds of men and women in Congress, too.

I found it mildly amusing that Trump claimed he's smart about not paying taxes. After reading an interview with one of his accountants from back then, it sounds like more of a case of his only being smart enough to hire aggressive, talented accountants (but then again, good chance they were his father's accountants) . I believe the accountant noted that Trump did little else but sign the tax documents. Ivanna (his 1st wife and Ivanka'a mom) allegedly was the only Trump family member to actually ask questions. And while the Democrats are pointing out his lack of paying taxes, they should really be focusing on the business decisions he made that led to such huuuge tax writeoffs. Those business decisions included the famously mismanaged Trump Shuttle and the collapse of his AC casino empire. (very interesting reading if you find sources not blindly supporting Trump). I also think part of the tax writeoff was interest from a massive loan he took out to buy the NY Plaza hotel. it would be interesting to see who gave him that loan but I'm guessing he doesn't want that out there. Some have suggested Russian or Chinese oligarchs, which if true, could be a potentially big problem for a president..

All this stuff aside, even armed with proof, It does not appear Trump supporters care at all about his many bad decisions, lies, and indiscretions. So Telco's incessant cutting and pasting anything he finds on line that's anti-Trump (or Pro-Hillary) is not going to change anyone's mind. But then again, Howie has consumed s0 much Democratic party koolaid, his blinders are welded on his face.

Bubba1 wrote:All this stuff aside, even armed with proof, It does not appear Trump supporters care at all about his many bad decisions, lies, and indiscretions.

I agree but the undecided especially women will care

Many more care about Trumps language and being unfit for POTUS

Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ics%252Bnation

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:

Bubba1 wrote:All this stuff aside, even armed with proof, It does not appear Trump supporters care at all about his many bad decisions, lies, and indiscretions.

I agree but the undecided especially women will care

Many more care about Trumps language and being unfit for POTUS

Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ics%252Bnation

Telcoman

Hello McFly? anyone home?. Do you honestly think undecided women don't already know Trump's a vulgar pig? The reason they're still undecided is because Hillary also is also unlikeable. You're willing to ignore her many indiscretions, the same way Trump supporters seem willing to dismiss his.

As far Trump's lewd conversation. I lol'ed. Not exactly shocking. I also laughed when Giuliani attacked Clinton's fidelity recently. He's a pig too. Rudy not only married his second cousin (1st wife) , he also got thrown out of Gracie Mansion while NYC mayor by wife #2 after he got caught cheating with a staffer. If you consider fidelity/honesty requirements for being president , neither is good.

Just wondering who will be the last supporters of Trump?

Uh, McFly, If enough Hillary supporters don't get out and vote, thinking she's the shoe-in you think she is, Trump could actually win, and those "last supporters" will be laughing at you.

Available at Walmart, Anti-Trump device for a woman's protection.

Agreed that Trump is a scumbag of the worst kind: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/po ... women.html

Z

I dunno Z. There is no question he's a scumbag. But as far as being the worst kind? I think Bill Cosby might be worse, though Cosby is not running for President. Seems safe to say Trump can also seen as a hypocrite for attacking Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, as Trump's own track record in that department is just as bad. why his followers ignore that is beyond me. But It wouldn't surprise me if more women come forward before election day. This election season has been the most nauseating on record.

Bubba1 wrote:But as far as being the worst kind? I think Bill Cosby might be worse

Yeah ... there are further extremes too, I suppose.

Bubba1 wrote:Seems safe to say Trump can also seen as a hypocrite for attacking Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, as Trump's own track record in that department is just as bad. why his followers ignore that is beyond me.

They are swayed and blinded by the demagogue and the simple third-grade-level language that Trump uses to address them. They think it is "plain-speaking", but is actually just a school-yard bully approach. They don't realize he is talking down to them.

Bubba1 wrote:But It wouldn't surprise me if more women come forward before election day.

Would not surprise me either. Pathetic situation ...

Bubba1 wrote:This election season has been the most nauseating on record.

Agreed ... definitely! I have been voting for many decades now, after I became a US citizen, and I cannot recall one where I felt such anger at the choices.

Z

I'm not angry.
After what the republican party had done to F#up our government, and the treatment of a president that was elected twice, the party is getting what they deserve. Payback is a b****.

So glad we have a free press

Last issue / Current issue





Even the right wing media



Telcoman

Honestly, there is no more Republican party. They may still have the (R) by their names on the ballots, but the party is dead. And that's a shame. It's a shame that a candidate such as Trump has been allowed to claim that he's a member of that party.

I'm rarely wrong about elections. I don't always get my way, but I'm rarely wrong.

Here's my predictions for the future of the Republican party, such as it is.

There will be safeguards installed at the party level to prevent megalomaniacs from receiving the party nomination. The first, tax returns must be made public before the primaries. The RNC will require access to the medical records, albeit not necessarily making them public. Any civil suits will be disclosed, including settlement information that might otherwise be confidential. Vetting will take on a new depth of review. Trump has given the political world a big gift, that is, he's shown us everything that's wrong with the system. Expect something along the lines of, if you want party support, you'll sing the party song, not one of your choosing. IE, someone that can follow a script.

I also see, as a result of events in this election, the US developing strategies to deal with foreign powers who hack our political databases. Expect this sooner than later. Whether it be like kind retaliation, or political sanctions, something will be coming, something more than angry rhetoric. There are many interesting articles on Guccifer 2.0, hacking and such at http://motherboard.vice.com/tag/hacking. Worth the time reading it.

Being endorsed by foreign leaders, like Putin or Kim Jung-un will become a kiss of death. Trump has offered too many other, better, more viable avenues of attack this cycle making it not worth the bother pointing out and running with suck campaign-killing endorsements. It the future you'll hear candidates disavow those leaders instead of praising them as trump has done.

Yep, the Republican party, as you know it, is dead. It will need to reinvent itself, build from what's left that has worked in the past, and... put a muzzle on the fringe lunatics like Rudy Giuliani. Dizzy females with dumb smiles, like Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be left to decompose where they lay. Other than Trump supporters, people laugh at what they say and how they spin it, they clearly are nothing more than "long hair distractions" from the truth.

Bottom tl:dr line. Trump has helped the Democrats elect an unpopular candidate this cycle, and he's responsible for a coming redefining of the Republican party. Win/win

Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. Impeach him. Trump proudly brags about sexual assault (and has cheated on his wives). Elect him. Hillary oversaw the department of state while 4 people died in an embassy attack. Put her in jail. 2 Republicans were in office while over 200 people died in embassy attacks. No problem. Immigrants don't pay taxes. Round them up and kick them out. Trump doesn't pay taxes. He's a business genius. Hillary's foundation only spent 87% of their donations helping people. She's a crook. Trumps foundation paid off his debts, bought sculptures of him, and made political donations to avoid investigations while using less than 5% of funds for charity (and he got shut down by NY State). So savvy... Put him in the white house. Trump made 4 billion dollars in 40 years, when an index fund started at the same time with the same "small loans" he received would be worth $12 billion today... without a trail of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits and burned small business owners. He's a real business whiz. Hillary took a loss of $700k. She's a criminal. Trump is the first candidate in the modern era not to release his tax returns, and took a billion dollar loss in 1 year. Genius. Hillary takes responsibility for private email servers and apologizes. Not credible. Trump denies saying things (on the record) he actually said (on the record), he's just telling it like it is.

Your arguments are thin. Your ignorance of reality is shocking. Your double-standards are offensive, and your willingness to blindly support him and recycle the rhetoric is absurd. Your opinion is not fact. Your memes are not news articles. And your hypocrisy is not a platform."

Alex Schiller


Telcoman

telco - that "spelling it out" by Dr. Schiller is very good. It's presented in a straightforward, plain manner so most Trump supporters can understand what they will continue to ignore. Unfortunately it will not change any of their votes since they gave up on truth and common sense a long time ago.

^^^^^^^^^

As many have realized by now that Trump can no longer in anyway justify his comments and deplorable treatment of women, he has now attempted to shift his rantings on a corrupt media, a corrupt election, and the republican party (the party of family values) for his upcoming loss of the presidential election. The best possible outcome would be a HUGE loss in almost every state but a loss of the house and senate as well.
Hillary will then be able to get all the things done that the tea party and republicans have refused to do and get our government working again.
Hopefully the deplorables will then begin to fade away like the ones chanting "lock her up" and wearing sweatshirts stating "Trump can grab me here" with an arrow pointing to their crotch, and other nut jobs threatening revolution.

I don't think Trump really wants to be president. He may attempt to start some sort of media outfit to sell his s#it to the stupid people that will continue to support him.

Will he make a concession speech supporting the transition of power to the winner in our democracy?

I along with the entire world will be watching and waiting.

Telcoman

Obama Tells Trump: Stop ‘Whining’ and Trying to Discredit the Election

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/po ... -news&_r=0


"“One of the great things about America’s democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest, and when its done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, reaffirms our democracy and we move forward,” Mr. Obama said.

Speaking of the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power after presidential elections, Mr. Obama said, “That’s how democracy survives.”

“I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts.”

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:^^^^^^^^^

As many have realized by now that Trump can no longer in anyway justify his comments and deplorable treatment of women, he has now attempted to shift his rantings on a corrupt media, a corrupt election, and the republican party (the party of family values) for his upcoming loss of the presidential election.

Telcoman

Someone needs to remind trump that he did receive almost 3 billion worth or media coverage true out the primaries. A lot more than all the other candidates combine. N the media is rigged against him? Trevor Noah said it best in the daily show last nite. He got all the media coverage cause that's what he does and all they do is record the s*** that he says n play it back..

for some reason I'm beginning to think that all this whining about everything being rigged against him is just excuses, he don't give. A crap about no email or even that's it's hillary, it almost seems like the whole issue is that he can't stand that hes losing to a woman. I don't think he gives a s*** about anything else. Hes a womenizer n he's getting beat by a woman and he cannot stand it.

One betting site already pays out

Irish betting firm calls the election for Hillary and pays out $1 million on bets

Bookies-call-Clinton-Irish-firm-Paddy-Power-pays-1-million-bets-Hillary-declaring-Trump-s-campaign-over.html#ixzz4NWG7OF7h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -over.html

Telcoman

Well, with the new emails and FBI reopening hillarys case. It looks like trump might still have a chance. Ain't over till its over..
Also with trump saying that the election is rigged against him, how is wiki leaks trying to influence the election towards trumps way any different. I'm sure hillary is NOT the only one using email n had some shady stuff goin on.

Hmmm. I agree Trump still has a chance to win the election, but I'm not so sure this particular "bombshell" will sway many voters at this late point. I suppose it could sway as many voters as, say, a 13th woman (instead of 12) accusing Trump of being inappropriate. Surely, this is great fodder for the media to exploit, a goldmine for Trump hate meme creators, Trump FB posters, and a good topic for Trump's campaign itself (and don't call me Shirley). But unless the FBI reveals a true smoking gun e-mail at this point, I don't see it being much of a game-changer. She's already been dealing with this email scandal for a long time. But then again, stranger things have happened during this campaign season. This election can't be over soon enough.

Another observation that many seem to overlook: the FBI said they were actually investigating Anthony weiner's emails, when they discovered his correspondence with Hillary. It's seems more likely that we'll soon be reading about d*** pics he sent Hillary than proof of her diabolical plans for world destruction.

One other thought, as I just finished my morning coffee, for those accusing the FBI of being biased (in favor of Hillary), the FBI released this news before they even read a single newly discovered email. Putting out news like that on an active investigation that hadn't even started is unusual, even more unusual timed so closely to the election. That could be construed by Hillary supporters as being politically biased against Hillary. So which is true? Sadly, the answer seems to depend on whom you support as both sides will still believe the system is plotting against their candidate.

As Nate Silver points out this morning Trump has gained 4 percentage points in his odds of winning the election. Clinton still leads 80.6% to Trump's 19.4%. That does not reflect any polls since the latest FBI letter, though. Trump's gain in voters is not at Clinton's expense; he's just gaining in voter commitments from Republicans who've been sitting on the fence up until now. I suspect it will tighten a lot more as people continue to jump to conclusions instead of true evidence that something incriminating is actually there.

You are absolutely right that this could be totally innocent but conspiracy advocates like Trump and his supporters will never see it that way. They will accuse the FBI of doctoring those emails to hide incriminating details.

I wonder how many people who voted early (after all, many millions of votes have already been cast) wish they had waited until the last day or two to vote. With outrageous statements and details still coming out of both sides I really don't understand how anyone could feel they are doing their civic duty in a responsible manner when they vote early in this type of election. Even if they're so sick of all of this they just want to get it over with it's still not a good idea to vote early unless you have no choice (absentee ballots, transportation not available on election day, etc.)