Trump

[Bubba1]

I doubt he'll drop out at this point. Too big an ego. But be careful what you wish for. If Gary Johnson gets invited to the debates and finally gets national coverage, Hillary's "coffin" might be getting some nails too. She's not a popular candidate.

[srellim234]

Bubba1 - I agree. I think Johnson will take a lot more votes from Clinton than Trump. The Trump supporters at this point are already pretty irrational and aren't going to switch.

The Democrats are going to do everything they can behind the scenes to keep Johnson from the debates. The dilemma they face is that they can't even acknowledge publicly that third parties exist or they risk uninformed voters from finding out about them and switching their votes away from Clinton.

[telcoman]

Bubba1 - I agree. I think Johnson will take a lot more votes from Clinton than Trump.

Perhaps not!

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

"At the same time, the unusually large number of voters considering a third-party candidate make Mrs. Clinton’s tallies seem likelier to be enough to win.

The polling numbers for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will probably decline — especially once likely-voter screens are added. Mrs. Clinton’s tally would probably improve in the process; some of those voters would drift to her, and her voters would become a larger share of likely voters.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, faces the opposite issue. His support has plummeted: In fact, he didn’t even breach 40 percent in any of the national surveys that were released on Wednesday or Thursday.

His huge edge among white working-class voters has all but vanished, at least temporarily. In the last four national surveys, he has held just 51.5 percent of white voters without a college degree — worse than the 57 percent he held in June and July polls conducted ahead of the Democratic convention, and even worse than the 55 percent of the vote held by Mitt Romney in pre-election polls in 2012."

Keep dreaming just like the dreams in 2012

Hillary is the one

Telcoman

[srellim234]

Telco - as usual you are so blinded by your partisanship that you didn't even take the time to really read what Bubba and I actually said. Getting "some" nails in the coffin is not the same as the coffin being nailed shut and sealed. It stands to reason that Trump will lose fewer voters to third parties than Clinton since Trump supporters are already blind to any logic or reason, not to mention that he has fewer voters to lose in the first place.

As I said, the Democrats have a self interest in making sure those Bernie supporters see Democrats and Republicans as the only two parties in existence. The fact that Bernie was an independent who sold out to run as a Democrat instead of staying true to his roots and running as an independent or on a third party ticket also might mean that many of his supporters currently only see "R" and "D" as the only thing that's going to be on the ballot. If their eyes were opened to the existence of Stein or Johnson that 90 % support Clinton has of Bernie supporters may well shrink. She will still win with a smaller percentage of them but it will be a lot easier for her to secure the election if voters remain ignorant of those third party options available to them.

[telcoman]

Telco - as usual you are so blinded by your partisanship that you didn't even take the time to really read what Bubba and I actually said.

Everything you say in praising the republican party is non sense

There are many that know much more than you

Trump is unfit to be POTUS

Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

By MICHAEL J. MORELLAUG. 5, 2016


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opini ... eft-region

"During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.

My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president."

Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.

Telcoman

[telcoman]

The biggest loser!


As Donald Trump Incites Feuds, Other G.O.P. Candidates Flee His Shadow

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

"After a disastrous week of feuds and plummeting poll numbers, Republican leaders have concluded that Donald J. Trump is a threat to the party’s fortunes and have begun discussing how soon their endangered candidates should explicitly distance themselves from the presidential nominee.

For Republicans in close races, top strategists say, the issue is no longer in doubt. One House Republican has already started airing an ad vowing to stand up to Mr. Trump if he is elected president, and others are expected to press similar themes in the weeks ahead."

In the world of Republican “super PACs,” strategists are going even farther: discussing advertisements that would treat Mr. Trump’s defeat as a given and urge voters to send Republicans to Congress as a check on a Hillary Clinton White House. The discussions were described by officials familiar with the deliberations, several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity about confidential planning.

For now, some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents are simply hoping to avoid what they see as the taint of association with their standard-bearer.

Two members of Congress locked in competitive races made themselves scarce when Mr. Trump arrived in their states on Friday. The two, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Representative David Young of Iowa, held events elsewhere.

Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, in a conference call with reporters the same day, was less subtle. “Donald Trump is in a category unto himself,” Mr. Toomey said, predicting that his state’s voters “will make a completely separate decision” between the top of the ticket and the Senate campaign this year.

That is increasingly the hope of nearly every Republican leader across the country.

Mr. Trump’s plunge in polls this week, along with his dual attacks on the family of a fallen American soldier and the leadership of his own party, has convinced veteran Republican strategists that most of their candidates must navigate around the presidential nominee.

Plans for ads that distance congressional candidates from the top of the ticket have accelerated. “You will see them by early to mid-September now,” even before the first debate on Sept. 26, predicted Scott Reed, the senior political strategist for the United States Chamber of Commerce.

At a recent conference of Republican donors, Paul D. Ryan, the speaker of the House, warned that even the party’s substantial majority in that chamber might be in jeopardy.

“The conclusion has become that the guy is incorrigible,” said Thomas M. Davis III, a former House member from Virginia who is still close to many of the party’s leaders. “He’s going to leave our candidates with no choice but to go their own separate way.”

Mr. Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment, but on Friday night he tried to calm angry Republicans by endorsing, belatedly, the re-elections of Mr. Ryan and Senators John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Mr. Trump had been feuding with them after they criticized his ridicule of the parents of Humayun Khan, a Muslim American Army captain killed in Iraq. Captain Khan’s parents had denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention.

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, had urged Mr. Trump to stand behind Mr. Ryan and the senators for the sake of party unity. Some leading Republicans have expressed hope that Mr. Trump can at least stabilize his campaign by Labor Day, when many voters begin paying attention to congressional races.

But with such an erratic and belligerent candidate leading their ticket, many in the party have long seen a go-your-own-way strategy as inevitable.

David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, a group that advocates small government, said the organization was studying how to get Republican voters who may dislike Mr. Trump to turn out for the party’s down-ballot candidates. Mr. McIntosh said the Club for Growth intended to convince voters that they would need a “strong voice in the Senate and House,” regardless of their feelings about the presidential race.

“You hope Trump does well so that the base Republican vote comes out and is strong,” Mr. McIntosh said. “But you also have to plan for if he doesn’t do well.”

At the moment, that seems likely. Mrs. Clinton opened a large lead last week in national polls, with a handful showing her leading by double digits. Perhaps more significantly, new surveys indicate that she has staked out leads in states Mr. Trump most likely needs to win the White House, including Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and that she is also close or edging ahead in Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, where at least one poll has her ahead.

Mrs. Clinton’s advantage may ebb. The surveys were taken soon after the Democratic National Convention and during Mr. Trump’s gaffe-filled week. But Republicans are planning for the worst.

Also under consideration is the possibility of a huge ad campaign to promote an agenda of conventional Republican positions, along the lines of economic proposals outlined by Mr. Ryan.

The point of such a campaign, one strategist said, would be to provide voters with a different, nonthreatening view of Republicans, so that the party is not wholly defined by Mr. Trump’s day-to-day pronouncements.

What stops Republicans from disavowing Mr. Trump en masse is that they fear alienating his voters, who may be crucial to the party’s efforts to retain its congressional majorities. In an era in which fewer voters split their tickets, it is important to Republican leaders that Mr. Trump at least run competitively with Mrs. Clinton to avert a down-ballot wipeout.

“Do we run the risk of depressing our base by repudiating the guy, or do we run the risk of being tarred and feathered by independents for not repudiating him?” asked Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working on many of this year’s races. “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”

Republicans currently have a precarious hold on the Senate; Democrats would need just four more seats to gain control if Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency, giving the chamber’s tiebreaker vote to her running mate, Tim Kaine. Republicans enjoy a more substantial majority in the House, where Democrats must capture 30 more seats to take control.

But Mr. Trump’s difficulties have become so acute that there is rising concern that Republicans could lose enough House seats to loosen Mr. Ryan’s grip and, in subsequent elections, threaten his majority.

Speaking in private to a group of donors last week at a political conference in Colorado sponsored by the industrialists Charles G. and David H. Koch, Mr. Ryan expressed concerns that the House was increasingly at risk, according to a Republican who was present for the conversation.

Mr. Ryan implored the donors not to assume that the House was impregnable and not to entirely focus their efforts on retaining the Senate.

Among the party’s biggest contributors, there is a growing sense of alarm about defending control of Congress, now that Mr. Trump has proved resistant to correcting course in the general election.

Republican donors had hoped that Mr. Trump would shed his practice, from the primary season, of seizing attention with incendiary remarks.

Jay Bergman, an Illinois oil executive and major Republican donor, said Mr. Trump’s clash with the parents of a slain soldier had been a sharp reality check. Mr. Bergman said he had previously viewed Mr. Trump as a “loose cannon like a fox” — calculating his inflammatory comments to drive his message. That view was harder to sustain after Mr. Trump’s latest eruption, he said.

With the presidential race looking so uncertain, Mr. Bergman said he was more focused on protecting the Senate. He said that donors at the Koch-sponsored conference had received a bracing presentation about just how difficult the political map was for Republican senators.

So far, Mr. Trump has faced disavowal from a modest array of congressional Republicans, nearly all of them dependent on the votes of moderate, suburban voters.

In the past week, the campaign of Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado, who represents suburban Denver, began airing a television ad in which he pledges to stand up to Mr. Trump if he becomes president. Other Republicans are expected to follow suit as early as this month.

But even that approach may be insufficient. House Republican officials were furious at Mr. Coffman for not being prepared to answer predictable follow-up questions about whether he still supported Mr. Trump. Democrats responded with an advertisement showing photos of Mr. Coffman and Mr. Trump side by side and urging voters to reject them both.

Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the chairman of the House Democratic campaign arm, said his party was aiming to ensure that Republicans would be tarnished by Mr. Trump, even if they distanced themselves from him.

“A denouncement of Trump at this point is too little, too late,” Mr. Luján warned.

There is precedent for Republicans to ease away from a presidential nominee who appears unable to win. Late in the 1996 campaign, the party ran television ads explicitly urging voters to elect a Republican Senate as a check on President Bill Clinton’s power, even as its challenger, Bob Dole, fought to overcome Mr. Clinton’s lead.

Former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was the majority leader at the time, said such cold-eyed measures had been necessary and effective — and may be once again.

“There are a lot of people saying we want to save the majority in the House and defend the Senate,” Mr. Lott said. “What I would say is: Clinton may be president, and we’re certainly going to need the Senate. And by the way, if Trump is president, he’s certainly going to need the Senate, too.”

Hard to understand how anyone can support such a person

Telcoman

[srellim234]

Telco - Find where I have ever praised the Republican party. You don't even know who you are talking to and obviously haven't even read what I've written in this forum since 2007.

[telcoman]

Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/po ... -news&_r=0

"WILMINGTON, N.C. — Donald J. Trump on Tuesday appeared to raise the possibility that gun rights supporters could take matters into their own hands if Hillary Clinton is elected president and appoints judges who favor stricter gun control measures.

Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking Supreme Court justice.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Oblique as it was, Mr. Trump’s remark quickly elicited a wave of condemnation from Democrats, gun control advocates and others, who accused him of suggesting violence against Mrs. Clinton or liberal jurists. Bernice A. King, daughter of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., called Mr. Trump’s words “distasteful, disturbing, dangerous.”"

"Veiled references to gun violence have tripped up candidates before. In 2010, Sharron Angle, a Nevada Republican challenging the Senate majority leader at the time, Harry Reid, severely damaged her unsuccessful candidacy while discussing the importance of the Second Amendment. “When you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny,” she said, adding: “It’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

A very dangerous and unhinged candidate whose poll numbers continue to fall and is losing to a well qualified women. Blaming the media for his mistakes.

Telcoman

[Bubba1]

The only thing that's true in what you quoted is that his statement was "oblique." The Democrats are obviously attempting to construe it as a veiled suggestion for violence. Most Republicans are interpreting it as reaching out to a well oiled lobbying group to try to influence. Yes, I'm sure there is a small segment of disturbed Trump followers that believe it's a rally cry for violence, but I highly doubt that's a majority of the party view. Bottom line, it was vague. To us independents, It's simply one of countless daily unfiltered blurts from his mouth (or other orifice) that makes us collectively scratch our heads about him. That's all.

[telcoman]

To us independents, It's simply one of countless daily unfiltered blurts from his mouth (or other orifice) that makes us collectively scratch our heads about him. That's all.

So you still support him?

I'm not so sure about many other independents as his poll numbers keep dropping.

Telcoman

[Rogue One]

Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton

Telcoman

I Guess Hillary Forgot The Time She Said Someone Should KILL Obama.

[Rogue One]

Trump is unfit to be POTUS
Telcoman

I've seen so much stuff about how trump is not qualified. As if Obama was. A junior professor, community organizer (full time protestor/activist) and then a Jr Senator that had weak attendance for votes. I think they mean Trump isn't qualified because he's white and has man parts.

[Bubba1]

So you still support him?

I'm not so sure about many other independents as his poll numbers keep dropping.

Telcoman

Howie, I correct you on the candidate you hate and you automatically assume I'm for him? Gosh you're thick. I have never ever supported Trump. I don't like Hillary either. I'm an independent. Do you even know what that is? what annoys me are consumers of either party's Koolaid (yes, that includes you) who blindly believe the political bovine excrement being fed to them, much of which is untrue.

[srellim234]

Bubba - I hope you're not expecting an answer from telco. I already called him out on his false assumptions about us and he has refused to acknowledge my post about it, let alone apologize for being wrong. He is a typical major party supporter who is most interested in keeping his party in power and does not allow for middle ground on anything. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't make any difference.

[Bubba1]

LOL, I'm not expecting anything from him and I agree with you. Such is the nature of partisan politics these days, I suppose.

[telcoman]

I'm an independent. Do you even know what that is?

Bernie Sanders?

Telcoman

[srellim234]

Bernie Sanders is not an independent. He gave that distinction up when he started running for the Democratic nomination.

[Bubba1]

I'm an independent. Do you even know what that is?

Bernie Sanders?

Telcoman

No Howie. Independent means I'm a registered voter with no party affiliation. you seem to be under the delusion that if anyone dislikes one main party candidate, that means they must support the other party candidate. BZZZZZZT! wrong! It might shock you, but it's possible to dislike BOTH main party candidates. Perhaps you need shock treatment.

[telcoman]

So what exactly is the independent platform?

Americans heard both the republican and democratic platforms during the conventions

There is a clear choice over which candidate would be best for the United States moving forward putting nation ahead of party.

Or will you just stay home sitting on the sidelines complaining?

Telcoman

[Bubba1]

Howie, please read this very slowly. I am a REGISTERED VOTER. I vote in every election. I am not associated with any party. I am neither Democrat or Republican. That means I vote for the candidates I think are better (or least worst), regardless of political party. There is no INDEPENDENT platform. I am an INDEPENDENT voter.

You see a clear choice. I don't. Like many thousands of other independents, I see 2 undesireable choices. So while closed-minded followers like you find/post inaccurate attack articles/memes you see on Facebook or some politically slanted website that rips the other party candidate, I'm one of many thousands seeking an alternative. At this point, one alternative that looks promising is Gary Johnson, someone I presume you know nothing about since you're blinded by Hillary. But since the election is still months away, I don't have to decide anything yet. Does that make more sense or do I need to use smaller words?

[srellim234]

telco, we heard both the Republican and the Democratic platforms during the conventions. Most independents reject blindly following either one. The majority of us are right of center fiscally and left of center socially.

We vote for individuals in each race and over the years paid very little attention to the party. A candidate who proposes doing something left of center socially but has a financially sound plan to pay for it will usually get my vote. As the Republicans have turned extreme right socially and sold out the majority of the American citizens financially for personal gain I have paid more attention to avoiding ever voting for a Republican again.

The same holds true for the Democrats who are dead set on bankrupting the country for their social plans. The social plans are ok; the financial implementation by Democrats is disastrous for all of us. Add to that the fact that both parties are primarily interested in having a top 1% ruling class, no middle class and a subservient lower class to support that 1% and youcn see why we want nothing to do with either major party and support replacing them with a right, left and moderate party. Two parties no longer work in this country because of the extreme polarization.

[telcoman]

Main Stream Media?




Looking good for my 401k plan

telco, we heard both the Republican and the Democratic platforms during the conventions. Most independents reject blindly following either one. The majority of us are right of center fiscally and left of center socially.

We vote for individuals in each race and over the years paid very little attention to the party. A candidate who proposes doing something left of center socially but has a financially sound plan to pay for it will usually get my vote. As the Republicans have turned extreme right socially and sold out the majority of the American citizens financially for personal gain I have paid more attention to avoiding ever voting for a Republican again.

Unfortunately a previous Republican candidate got us into two wars with a false assertion of WMD with tens of thousands of American deaths and many more wounded and a do nothing congress that refused to declare war and provide the necessary funds to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. The beginnings of ISIS began here and not with President Obama.

The trillions of dollars to reduce the national debt needs to come out of the pockets of those earning over 10 million dollars per year and not out of the pockets of the middle class.

What independent candidate is for this?
What independent candidate is in favor of single payer healthcare?
What independent candidate is in favor of increasing the wage base on FICA earnings to save, increase and preserve Social Security?
What independent candidate is in favor of increasing taxes on the 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans and giving tax cuts to the middle class?
What independent candidate is in favor of overturning the supreme court citizens united decision?
What independent candidate is in favor of equal pay for equal work
What independent candidate is in favor of increasing woman's health services?

telco, we heard both the Republican and the Democratic platforms during the conventions. Most independents reject blindly following either one. The majority of us are right of center fiscally and left of center socially.

We vote for individuals in each race and over the years paid very little attention to the party. A candidate who proposes doing something left of center socially but has a financially sound plan to pay for it will usually get my vote. As the Republicans have turned extreme right socially and sold out the majority of the American citizens financially for personal gain I have paid more attention to avoiding ever voting for a Republican again.

The same holds true for the Democrats who are dead set on bankrupting the country for their social plans. The social plans are ok; the financial implementation by Democrats is disastrous for all of us. Add to that the fact that both parties are primarily interested in having a top 1% ruling class, no middle class and a subservient lower class to support that 1% and youcn see why we want nothing to do with either major party and support replacing them with a right, left and moderate party. Two parties no longer work in this country because of the extreme polarization.

Since no independent party or candidate has an organization, ground game or platform (Bernie Sanders came close) to attract a vast majority of Americans an independent candidate in my opinion will not be elected POTUS anytime soon.

Trump is on the verge of destroying the republican party.
His refusal to release his tax returns just reinforces what many already believe. He pays little or no taxes and provides little or no contributions to veterans as he claims.


Telcoman

[Bubba1]

You read facebook too much, Howie. Trump is not going to destroy the Republican party and the RNC is not going to disappear from the political map. That's nonsense. At worst they might lose a few seats in Congress at the next election. but they'll likely retain their majority in either the house or Senate, it'll always be close given decades of gerrymandering by both parties (I'm guessing you have no idea what that is - look it up), the lack of term limits, and sheep like you that blindly follow them. Unfortunately neither party is going anywhere.

I'm sure there are more important reasons why Trump is withholding his tax returns besides his tax shelters or lack of charitable donations. Many have suggested he's grossly overstating his net worth, based on the last time he disclosed financial records and got caught exaggerating (unsurprising for a narcissist), More disturbing are the allegations that he has some extremely large loans from both Chinese and Russian oligarchs. (google it if you don't understand that word) If that ends up being true, Trump might risk being personally pressured by Putin (surprised he says nice things about Putin?) and China to influence his foreign policy to their benefit. Not a good thing for a US President. But keep in mind, Hillary has been accused of using the Clinton Foundation to grant political favors to foreign governments in exchange for donations while she was Sec'y of State. That's not good either if it's proven to be true. And among the reasons why Hillary's unfavorable ratings are almost high as Trump.

[telcoman]

Everyone can make a mistake.
Hillary has acknowledged her mistakes
Trump?

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News has made their decision

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... blican.ece

Is the current republican party going the way of the Whig party?

Telcoman

[srellim234]

Unfortunately the Republican Party is not going to go away soon because they have done a masterful job of controlling the gerrymandering process at the state level despite being the minority party at the national level.

[Bubba1]

Everyone can make a mistake.
Hillary has acknowledged her mistakes
Trump?

Hillary has only acknowledged mistakes when the proof was obvious. Otherwise she denies until she has no other choice. Evidently you see no problem with that.

Yes. Trump is too much of a narcissist to accept blame for anything even with obvious proof. Duh. His supporters don't care, either. That's what you fail to grasp.

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News has made their decision

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... blican.ece


Telcoman

Are you that naiive to think publishing a Texas newspaper editorial department endorsement is going to suddenly sway voters all across the country? yeah, you probably are.

Is the current republican party going the way of the Whig party?

Telcoman

Nope. You obviously did not bother looking up "gerrymandering".

[telcoman]

What is a pig in a poke?

"The idioms pig in a poke and sell a pup (or buy a pup) refer to a confidence trick originating in the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce, but cats and dogs were not.[1][2][3] The idiom pig in a poke can also simply refer to someone buying a low-quality pig in a bag because he or she did not carefully check what was in the bag.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke


It clearly applies to Trump

Telcoman

[Rogue One]

Michael Moore: 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
"The Hillary Problem. Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected."


Trump closes in on Clinton's projected electoral lead: Reuters/Ipsos Poll http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN11G0KM
Republican Donald Trump appears to have carved out a wider path to the White House as a number of states including Florida and Ohio are no longer considered likely wins for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.

[WillV]

Everyone can make a mistake.
Hillary has acknowledged her mistakes
Trump?

Hillary has only acknowledged mistakes when the proof was obvious. Otherwise she denies until she has no other choice. Evidently you see no problem with that.

Yes. Trump is too much of a narcissist to accept blame for anything even with obvious proof. Duh. His supporters don't care, either. That's what you fail to grasp.

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News has made their decision

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... blican.ece


Telcoman

Are you that naiive to think publishing a Texas newspaper editorial department endorsement is going to suddenly sway voters all across the country? yeah, you probably are.

Is the current republican party going the way of the Whig party?

Telcoman

Nope. You obviously did not bother looking up "gerrymandering".

Great explanation. I agree with everything you said here bubba

[WillV]

Howie, please read this very slowly. I am a REGISTERED VOTER. I vote in every election. I am not associated with any party. I am neither Democrat or Republican. That means I vote for the candidates I think are better (or least worst), regardless of political party. There is no INDEPENDENT platform. I am an INDEPENDENT voter.

You see a clear choice. I don't. Like many thousands of other independents, I see 2 undesireable choices. So while closed-minded followers like you find/post inaccurate attack articles/memes you see on Facebook or some politically slanted website that rips the other party candidate, I'm one of many thousands seeking an alternative. At this point, one alternative that looks promising is Gary Johnson, someone I presume you know nothing about since you're blinded by Hillary. But since the election is still months away, I don't have to decide anything yet. Does that make more sense or do I need to use smaller words?

Same, again I agree bubba; the closed-minded cannot be swayed though.

telco, we heard both the Republican and the Democratic platforms during the conventions. Most independents reject blindly following either one. The majority of us are right of center fiscally and left of center socially.

We vote for individuals in each race and over the years paid very little attention to the party. A candidate who proposes doing something left of center socially but has a financially sound plan to pay for it will usually get my vote. As the Republicans have turned extreme right socially and sold out the majority of the American citizens financially for personal gain I have paid more attention to avoiding ever voting for a Republican again.

The same holds true for the Democrats who are dead set on bankrupting the country for their social plans. The social plans are ok; the financial implementation by Democrats is disastrous for all of us. Add to that the fact that both parties are primarily interested in having a top 1% ruling class, no middle class and a subservient lower class to support that 1% and youcn see why we want nothing to do with either major party and support replacing them with a right, left and moderate party. Two parties no longer work in this country because of the extreme polarization.

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.