We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen.

[Spare_change]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

So you consider all political donations pay offs for special favors? Then you must believe Wall Street owns Hillary.

Own her??? Nahhh ... they just rent her by the hour. Cheaper that way ... ask the Saudis.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

No, I'm not repeating any lies.

What is a politician?

Trump considered running for president in 2012,

Trump 'seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

"He's not exactly throwing his hat in the ring yet, but real estate mogul Donald Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he's giving his first serious consideration to running for president in 2012."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161415-trump-wont-run-for-president

"Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he won’t seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

"“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

So, he stated himself he was campaigning. He said he did it half heartedly, probably he saw he wasn't going to win, that Obama was too strong for him, and that he didn't have everything sorted out. Four years he's had to figure things out.

Is that not a guy who's been a politician for 4 years? A politician doesn't need to hold an office to be a politician. They just need to be playing the game, and Trump has been doing that.

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

"Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side."

This from 2011 before anyone gave a damn about Trump.

"The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records."

"Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests."

Why does he concentrate his money on candidates in areas where he has business interested? It's not hard to see why, is it?

He makes campaign contributions in part to help elect politicians who hold the same views that he does but that's very different from claiming he pays them off.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Really? Trump has never paid a politician? What about the FL DA he donated 25,000 to so that she'd drop the Trump U case?

How about the fact that he bragged that Hillary had to go to his wedding because he'd donated so much money to her?

That's just another Clinton lie. He didn't make a campaign contribution to the Florida Attorney General to drop the case because no case had ever been opened either by her or by the previous AG.

 

[ABikerSailor]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

So you consider all political donations pay offs for special favors? Then you must believe Wall Street owns Hillary.

Dunno if Wall St. owns Hillary, but I DO know that Donald Trump owes Goldman Sachs a significant amount of money.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Really? Trump has never paid a politician? What about the FL DA he donated 25,000 to so that she'd drop the Trump U case?

How about the fact that he bragged that Hillary had to go to his wedding because he'd donated so much money to her?

That's just another Clinton lie. He didn't make a campaign contribution to the Florida Attorney General to drop the case because no case had ever been opened either by her or by the previous AG.

She was the one the case was referred to and refused to prosecute.

If it's all so innocent, why is it being investigated?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump.html?_r=0

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Really? Trump has never paid a politician? What about the FL DA he donated 25,000 to so that she'd drop the Trump U case?

How about the fact that he bragged that Hillary had to go to his wedding because he'd donated so much money to her?

That's just another Clinton lie. He didn't make a campaign contribution to the Florida Attorney General to drop the case because no case had ever been opened either by her or by the previous AG.

She was the one the case was referred to and refused to prosecute.

If it's all so innocent, why is it being investigated?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump.html?_r=0

The previous AG received 20 complaints about Trump U but declined to open an investigation since the New York investigation was going on an Florida residents could seek relief in New York courts. Bondi received one complaint and decided for the same reason not to open an investigation. There is no investigation into Hillary's lies about this.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

No, I'm not repeating any lies.

What is a politician?

Trump considered running for president in 2012,

Trump 'seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

"He's not exactly throwing his hat in the ring yet, but real estate mogul Donald Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he's giving his first serious consideration to running for president in 2012."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161415-trump-wont-run-for-president

"Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he won’t seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

"“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

So, he stated himself he was campaigning. He said he did it half heartedly, probably he saw he wasn't going to win, that Obama was too strong for him, and that he didn't have everything sorted out. Four years he's had to figure things out.

Is that not a guy who's been a politician for 4 years? A politician doesn't need to hold an office to be a politician. They just need to be playing the game, and Trump has been doing that.

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

"Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side."

This from 2011 before anyone gave a damn about Trump.

"The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records."

"Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests."

Why does he concentrate his money on candidates in areas where he has business interested? It's not hard to see why, is it?

He makes campaign contributions in part to help elect politicians who hold the same views that he does but that's very different from claiming he pays them off.

I said to do his bidding. There's a subtle difference between paying them off, bribery, and what I'm talking about. He's giving money to politicians, and he's talking to these politicians and trying to influence their actions with money. It might work, it might not work, but then politicians know they aren't getting more money if they don't do what he requires.

And none of this includes money he may, or may not, have given to super PACs, probably why he doesn't want to release his tax returns......

 

[owebo]

Labor is a small part of the equation yet you seem to want to make it a top factor.

All inhibitors to industry are democrat .gov induced terrorism designed to separate Americans from jobs.....

1) Labor costs are the second most impactful factor on product costs -- compliance with government regulation is first.

2) You pretty much summed it up. "All inhibitors to industry are democrat gov induced ... "

You know, if it wasn't for those regulations, companies would pollute a lot more resulting in fewer consumers, meaning the business will go broke because they don't have any customers.

You think regulations are bad? Think about that if you ever have a car crash and the airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, reinforced frame and seatbelts keep you out of the hospital.

Think about it also if you have clean water to drink. There are many places in this country where the water and soil are polluted by chemicals, heavy metals, oil and other unsavory things, and in some cases, it's so bad the kids can't play outside in the grass.

Regulations help stop things like that.

I truly love the binary processing of the liberal mind.

No one said ALL regulation is bad ... but I did say that SOME of our regulations are ridiculous and those who implement them need to be removed from government service. When most regulations are passed, there is no concern for the ramifications of that regulation, except for the single issue it is supposedly implemented to address. They never bother to consider the secondary consequences, nor are they willing to revisit their decision based on the real world harm they do.

So.................name me three EPA regulations that you think are bad, and tell me why.

I'll give you an easy one ... near and dear to your leader's heart ... go look at the coal ash rules, and its impact on businesses.

Obama’s Trickle Down EPA Regulations Are Harming Businesses and Energy Production

How about another one?? Out-of-Control EPA Is Hurting the Economy

Wanna kill small businesses? Here's a good way --- Stop Terrorizing Main Street

Obama is killing coal using the Clean Air Act....our bikersailor friend knows this and wants us to state that so he can use the propaganda of democrats that we are against clean air....

These liberal fucktards are insane....I run into their 'republicans want dirty air, and dirty water' bullshit every time I am on K Street fighting for industry....they are fascist destroyers of industry and the EPA is their weapon of choice....

 

[owebo]

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

No, I'm not repeating any lies.

What is a politician?

Trump considered running for president in 2012,

Trump 'seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

"He's not exactly throwing his hat in the ring yet, but real estate mogul Donald Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he's giving his first serious consideration to running for president in 2012."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161415-trump-wont-run-for-president

"Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he won’t seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

"“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

So, he stated himself he was campaigning. He said he did it half heartedly, probably he saw he wasn't going to win, that Obama was too strong for him, and that he didn't have everything sorted out. Four years he's had to figure things out.

Is that not a guy who's been a politician for 4 years? A politician doesn't need to hold an office to be a politician. They just need to be playing the game, and Trump has been doing that.

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

"Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side."

This from 2011 before anyone gave a damn about Trump.

"The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records."

"Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests."

Why does he concentrate his money on candidates in areas where he has business interested? It's not hard to see why, is it?

He makes campaign contributions in part to help elect politicians who hold the same views that he does but that's very different from claiming he pays them off.

I said to do his bidding. There's a subtle difference between paying them off, bribery, and what I'm talking about. He's giving money to politicians, and he's talking to these politicians and trying to influence their actions with money. It might work, it might not work, but then politicians know they aren't getting more money if they don't do what he requires.

And none of this includes money he may, or may not, have given to super PACs, probably why he doesn't want to release his tax returns......

Trumps not releasing his tax returns because he is being audited....

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

No, I'm not repeating any lies.

What is a politician?

Trump considered running for president in 2012,

Trump 'seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

"He's not exactly throwing his hat in the ring yet, but real estate mogul Donald Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he's giving his first serious consideration to running for president in 2012."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161415-trump-wont-run-for-president

"Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he won’t seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

"“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

So, he stated himself he was campaigning. He said he did it half heartedly, probably he saw he wasn't going to win, that Obama was too strong for him, and that he didn't have everything sorted out. Four years he's had to figure things out.

Is that not a guy who's been a politician for 4 years? A politician doesn't need to hold an office to be a politician. They just need to be playing the game, and Trump has been doing that.

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

"Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side."

This from 2011 before anyone gave a damn about Trump.

"The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records."

"Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests."

Why does he concentrate his money on candidates in areas where he has business interested? It's not hard to see why, is it?

He makes campaign contributions in part to help elect politicians who hold the same views that he does but that's very different from claiming he pays them off.

I said to do his bidding. There's a subtle difference between paying them off, bribery, and what I'm talking about. He's giving money to politicians, and he's talking to these politicians and trying to influence their actions with money. It might work, it might not work, but then politicians know they aren't getting more money if they don't do what he requires.

And none of this includes money he may, or may not, have given to super PACs, probably why he doesn't want to release his tax returns......

Again, you are lying. He is not trying to influence politicians with money, he is supporting politicians who already agree with him. That's how the system is supposed to work and that's protected free speech. According to you claim, we'd have to say Hillary is owned by Wall Street, as Sanders suggested, because of all big donations she has accepted from them. According to you, Hillary would have to be considered just a pawn of Wall Street investment bankers.

 

[Slade3200]

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

I respected your first post but you lost me with this one. I'm not a big fan of Hillary but I also see Trump for what he is, an entertainer and a visionary businessman with a lot of money, but beyond that he doesn't know details, uses his money and power to bully people to get what he wants and spouts more manipulation and lies than Hillary. HRC isnt a pillar of honesty either, she is a calculated lawyer politician and extremely guarded. I trust her more than I trust Trump but am definitely disappointed by both options. if you honestly think that trump is honest and straight forward you are fooling yourself... That's all part of his act

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

I respected your first post but you lost me with this one. I'm not a big fan of Hillary but I also see Trump for what he is, an entertainer and a visionary businessman with a lot of money, but beyond that he doesn't know details, uses his money and power to bully people to get what he wants and spouts more manipulation and lies than Hillary. HRC isnt a pillar of honesty either, she is a calculated lawyer politician and extremely guarded. I trust her more than I trust Trump but am definitely disappointed by both options. if you honestly think that trump is honest and straight forward you are fooling yourself... That's all part of his act

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

 

[Slade3200]

I respected your first post but you lost me with this one. I'm not a big fan of Hillary but I also see Trump for what he is, an entertainer and a visionary businessman with a lot of money, but beyond that he doesn't know details, uses his money and power to bully people to get what he wants and spouts more manipulation and lies than Hillary. HRC isnt a pillar of honesty either, she is a calculated lawyer politician and extremely guarded. I trust her more than I trust Trump but am definitely disappointed by both options. if you honestly think that trump is honest and straight forward you are fooling yourself... That's all part of his act

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

I did the same thing you did in your analysis. Pick a subject and we can dive into it if you'd like

 

[toomuchtime_]

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

I did the same thing you did in your analysis. Pick a subject and we can dive into it if you'd like

Illegal immigration, school vouchers as in the DC program, trade deficits, US Russia relations and as subsets of this topic, the tensions in eastern Europe and the war in the ME. Pick one or suggest another.

 

[rdean]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

So you consider all political donations pay offs for special favors? Then you must believe Wall Street owns Hillary.

Own her??? Nahhh ... they just rent her by the hour. Cheaper that way ... ask the Saudis.

She did a job, got paid and walked away. She doesn't owe anything to anyone.

Trump owes hundreds of millions to China, India, Russia and you guessed it, WALL STREET! All together, it could be close to a billion dollars.

They aren't paying him. HE OWES THEM. Trump is owned. Like he said, "He is the King of Debt". But it looks more like he's a pawn.

That's just a fact.

 

[owebo]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

So you consider all political donations pay offs for special favors? Then you must believe Wall Street owns Hillary.

Own her??? Nahhh ... they just rent her by the hour. Cheaper that way ... ask the Saudis.

She did a job, got paid and walked away. She doesn't owe anything to anyone.

Trump owes hundreds of millions to China, India, Russia and you guessed it, WALL STREET! All together, it could be close to a billion dollars.

They aren't paying him. HE OWES THEM. Trump is owned. Like he said, "He is the King of Debt". But it looks more like he's a pawn.

That's just a fact.

Hitlery.....

 

[rdean]

I respected your first post but you lost me with this one. I'm not a big fan of Hillary but I also see Trump for what he is, an entertainer and a visionary businessman with a lot of money, but beyond that he doesn't know details, uses his money and power to bully people to get what he wants and spouts more manipulation and lies than Hillary. HRC isnt a pillar of honesty either, she is a calculated lawyer politician and extremely guarded. I trust her more than I trust Trump but am definitely disappointed by both options. if you honestly think that trump is honest and straight forward you are fooling yourself... That's all part of his act

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

Except for helping millions of children get health care.
Prenatal care for women.
Health care for first responders the GOP blocked for 10 years.

House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy

How many bills have Republicans filibustered? Obama says...

 

[Spare_change]

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

Except for helping millions of children get health care.
Prenatal care for women.
Health care for first responders the GOP blocked for 10 years.

House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy

How many bills have Republicans filibustered? Obama says...

Health care for children? False ... they HAD health care, they just didn't have health care insurance.

Killing thousands of babies -- now THAT is a resume builder if I ever saw one.

First responder health care --- the ol' Democrat shuck and jive ... create a bill on something everybody agrees to, and then load it with a bunch of stuff NOBODY agrees to -- then bitch and moan because somebody takes the responsible action and blocks the bullshit.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

Don't be so quick to judge, I was on my phone yesterday which is why i was being brief... There is logic and reason behind all my statement deducted from months of observation and years of historical records of these two candidates. I'm not sure what you've been watching to draw your conclusions... Per your statement:

What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Politicians do change their positions on policies for a number of factors... Votes are definitely an influence but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. They represent more than themselves, they represent their constants or a political party and their supporters. I don't see any problem with either candidate changing their policies after gauging the needs and opinions of our citizens.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

Trump is not even close to a policy wonk. He plays off emotion and doesn't dig any deeper than the headlines. Listen to any of his speeches. He identifies a problem, say's we need to be tougher, stronger and better proposes some solutions like building a wall, deporting 17 million people, banning muslims, destroying ISIS etc etc etc but doesn't explain how it will be paid for or executed. Instead of doing that he defaults to his anti-Obama, anti-clinton rhetoric. Again, he is all emotion and no substance.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Clinton has played dirty, I won't deny that, but she has done much more than that. Your spin is very transparent with this one... Her hate and contempt as you call it aren't for political opposers it is for racists, bigots, and people that abuse bully and demean others. She has stood for human rights and civil rights her entire career and her fight against the haters is commendable to many.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

You got your last line backwards, Trump is all emotion and lacks common sense and in-depth understanding of how to solve issues. He does say what is on his mind, but often ends up with his foot in his mouth. Notice how they have him almost exclusively on the prompter now a days? There is a reason for this, because if he does say what he is thinking he will likely cause another media fire because he can't stay straight on a position.

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.

Once again you provide nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Try talking about facts instead of your feelings, compare them issue by issue and you will see Trump is the policy wonk in this contest and Clinton seems to have little or no interest in policy at all.

Except for helping millions of children get health care.
Prenatal care for women.
Health care for first responders the GOP blocked for 10 years.

House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy

How many bills have Republicans filibustered? Obama says...

Hillary has been lying about those things for years. As Obama said, Hillary will say anything to get votes but delivers nothing. Chip was put together by Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy. Hillary had nothing to do with it. It's one of her favorite lies.

 

[12icer]

[QUOTE="Slade3200, post: 15354562, member: 56533]

I actually like Trump more than I like Clinton. The dude cracks me up and I like seeing him call people out. But the thought of him running our country scares the shit out of me, cause the guy belongs on TV not the white house, he is a joke! Clinton , would not be my first choice, I was actually hoping the Reps would put up a decent nom so I could vote their way this cycle, however between the two shitty options we have Clinton is the obviously better condidate, it is a no brainer.[/QUOTE]


I don't consider a treasonist a good choice for dogcatcher, Selling uranium to Russia to be disbursed to Iran, North Korea, and for the upgrading of the Russian arsenal is to me giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country. The fact that she approved the sale while Secretary of State makes her complicit in the sale. Ignorance, and incompetence are at the top of my list NOT to vote for her, followed closely by arrogance and HER being a REAL racist,\ classist like all liberals.