Is it too late to stop the Donald Trump machine?

[NeverSure]

[keemapoot]

I think a lot of people on both sides who are posting definitively that either Trump or Clinton will win, with some posting all sorts of compelling evidence better take a deep breath. The Chicago Tribune article cites a new Washington Post-ABC news poll results:

Poll shows Clinton, Trump virtually tied as contest of negatives takes shape

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-trump-poll-20160522-story.html

[OMGImInPattaya]

[quote name="NovaBlue05"

No...I'm thinking WaPo. It ain't what it used to be....In fact, at the rate it and the NYT are abandoning journalism, they might soon be on the rack right there at the grocery checkout lane

So true...like how the NYT's front page "expose" on Trump and women blew up in their face! They thought they had a big scoop when they reported that rich men use their wealth to bed pretty women and that sometimes young women use their looks to attract and bed rich men. Only inside the politically-correct feminized hallowed halls of the NYT could they think this was scandelous "news" and beyond the pale of the American people.

Edited May 22, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[OMGImInPattaya]

I think a lot of people on both sides who are posting definitively that either Trump or Clinton will win, with some posting all sorts of compelling evidence better take a deep breath. The Chicago Tribune article cites a new Washington Post-ABC news poll results:

Poll shows Clinton, Trump virtually tied as contest of negatives takes shape

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-trump-poll-20160522-story.html

I guess this is what a "Hillary landslide" looks like! ?

[NeverSure]

[OMGImInPattaya]

Beware the "Hillary landslide" rolls on...

Edited May 23, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[OMGImInPattaya]

COVNbYPUYAA7dMJ.png

LMFAO ?

But you really should provide a trigger-warning with this post so some of our more sensitive members can retreat to a "safe space" before reading it.

[boomerangutang]

It's going to be a party around here the day after Trump wins the general election.

You must be one of those who thinks that winning is everything. Nothing else matters, other than winning, eh?.

Here are some winners for you: Pol Pot, Stalin, Chairman Mao.

You want a leader who is different than his predecessors? Those three above were different.

Here are some other winners who were different than the status quo:

Idi Amin, Milosovic, Marcos, Thaksin, Bokassa, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Sukarno, Lenin, Suharto.

The British have a saying, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right Wingers in America have changed that to: "Winning is everything."

Trump has shown he will say anything to win, no matter it it's a lie, whether it's illegal, whether it's potty mouth talk, or whether it's endangering Americans and the world (giving nukes to other countries, or trashing NATO, bankrupting the US, etc),

Personally, I'm not so worried, because I very much doubt Trump will win in November. However, his path of garbage & destruction (a.k.a. his campaign) is ugly.

He's THE DIVIDER. What other candidate sparks such divisiveness? ....even just among Thai Visa member, not to mention everyone else. Yet. he's also uniting. I never thought I (as a liberal) would agree so much with Romney, for example. Trump has united environmentalists, women and youngsters .....AGAINST HIM. I doubt there's one true environmentalist that likes him. So, perhaps I should thank Trump for uniting and galvanizing so many people He's compelled thinking people to strengthen their resolve to fight to protect the environment, among other things. Nothing brings people together better than a common enemy, and Trump is that enemy.

Edited May 23, 2016 by boomerangutang

[NovaBlue05]

It's going to be a party around here the day after Trump wins the general election.

You must be one of those who think that winning is everything. Nothing else matters, other than winning, eh?.

Here are some winners for you: Pol Pot, Stalin, Chairman Mao.

You want a leader who is different than his predecessors? Those three above were different. Different doesn't always mean better.

Here are so me other winners who were different than the status quo:

Idi Amin, Milosovic, Marcos, Thaksin, Bokassa, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Sukarno, Lenin, Suharto.

The British have a saying, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right Wingers in America have changed that to: "Winning is everything."

Trump has shown he will say anything to win, no matter it it's a lie, whether it's illegal, whether it's potty mouth talk, or whether it's endangering Americans and the world (giving nukes to other countries, or trashing NATO, bankrupting the US, etc),

Personally, I'm not so worried, because I very much doubt Trump will win in November. However, his path of garbage & destruction (a.k.a. his campaign) is ugly.

He's THE DIVIDER. What other candidate remotely sparks all the divisions? ....just among Thai Visa member, not to mention everyone else. Yet. he's also uniting. I never thought I (as a liberal) would agree so much with Romney, for example. Trump has united environmentalists, women and youngsters .....AGAINST HIM. I doubt there's one true environmentalist that likes him. So, perhaps I should thank Trump for uniting and galvanizing so many people - AGAINST HIM. He's forced thinking people to strengthen their resolve to fight to protect the environment, among other things. Nothing brings people together better than a common enemy, and Trump is that enemy.

The Clinton's will lie, cheat, steal and probably kill ....to win

"....He's THE DIVIDER. What other candidate remotely sparks all the divisions?..."

His opponent

Edited May 23, 2016 by NovaBlue05

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's going to be a party around here the day after Trump wins the general election.

You must be one of those who thinks that winning is everything. Nothing else matters, other than winning, eh?.

Here are some winners for you: Pol Pot, Stalin, Chairman Mao.

You want a leader who is different than his predecessors? Those three above were different.

Here are some other winners who were different than the status quo:

Idi Amin, Milosovic, Marcos, Thaksin, Bokassa, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Sukarno, Lenin, Suharto.

The British have a saying, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right Wingers in America have changed that to: "Winning is everything."

Trump has shown he will say anything to win, no matter it it's a lie, whether it's illegal, whether it's potty mouth talk, or whether it's endangering Americans and the world (giving nukes to other countries, or trashing NATO, bankrupting the US, etc),

Personally, I'm not so worried, because I very much doubt Trump will win in November. However, his path of garbage & destruction (a.k.a. his campaign) is ugly.

He's THE DIVIDER. What other candidate sparks such divisiveness? ....even just among Thai Visa member, not to mention everyone else. Yet. he's also uniting. I never thought I (as a liberal) would agree so much with Romney, for example. Trump has united environmentalists, women and youngsters .....AGAINST HIM. I doubt there's one true environmentalist that likes him. So, perhaps I should thank Trump for uniting and galvanizing so many people He's compelled thinking people to strengthen their resolve to fight to protect the environment, among other things. Nothing brings people together better than a common enemy, and Trump is that enemy.

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pansuit's gonna win in a landside right? ???

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's going to be a party around here the day after Trump wins the general election.

You must be one of those who thinks that winning is everything. Nothing else matters, other than winning, eh?.

Here are some winners for you: Pol Pot, Stalin, Chairman Mao.

You want a leader who is different than his predecessors? Those three above were different.

Here are some other winners who were different than the status quo:

Idi Amin, Milosovic, Marcos, Thaksin, Bokassa, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Sukarno, Lenin, Suharto.

The British have a saying, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right Wingers in America have changed that to: "Winning is everything."

Trump has shown he will say anything to win, no matter it it's a lie, whether it's illegal, whether it's potty mouth talk, or whether it's endangering Americans and the world (giving nukes to other countries, or trashing NATO, bankrupting the US, etc),

Personally, I'm not so worried, because I very much doubt Trump will win in November. However, his path of garbage & destruction (a.k.a. his campaign) is ugly.

He's THE DIVIDER. What other candidate sparks such divisiveness? ....even just among Thai Visa member, not to mention everyone else. Yet. he's also uniting. I never thought I (as a liberal) would agree so much with Romney, for example. Trump has united environmentalists, women and youngsters .....AGAINST HIM. I doubt there's one true environmentalist that likes him. So, perhaps I should thank Trump for uniting and galvanizing so many people He's compelled thinking people to strengthen their resolve to fight to protect the environment, among other things. Nothing brings people together better than a common enemy, and Trump is that enemy.

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pantsuit's gonna win in a landside right...isnt that what all the snarky and full of themselves "commentators" been telling everyone for months? ???

Edited May 23, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[thaibeachlovers]

CjFhHmMUoAAzxFx.jpg

Ciqdw7tUUAE1Fpl.jpg

I hope HRC IS the Dems candidate. Against Bernie, the Donald probably wouldn't stand a chance ( I'd vote for Bernie ), but against HRC Trump is definitely in with a chance. People just don't like her.

[mesquite]

CjFhHmMUoAAzxFx.jpg

Ciqdw7tUUAE1Fpl.jpg

I hope HRC IS the Dems candidate. Against Bernie, the Donald probably wouldn't stand a chance ( I'd vote for Bernie ), but against HRC Trump is definitely in with a chance. People just don't like her.

The Trump campaign loves her as she comes "pre-defeated"

[mopar71]

5 very smart things Donald Trump has done since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/five-very-smart-things-donald-trump-has-done-since-become-the-presumptive-republican-presidential-nominee/

[Publicus]

I think a lot of people on both sides who are posting definitively that either Trump or Clinton will win, with some posting all sorts of compelling evidence better take a deep breath. The Chicago Tribune article cites a new Washington Post-ABC news poll results:

Poll shows Clinton, Trump virtually tied as contest of negatives takes shape

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-trump-poll-20160522-story.html

I guess this is what a "Hillary landslide" looks like! ?

The American Mussolini right in the US continues to run off into its extreme world of radical and anti-Bill of Rights extremes.

They for instance miss the nuance of this poll and of just about every other nuance occurring in the campaign.

The poll survey is of registered voters, which is fine.

Anyone who knows anything about polling knows however that any poll needs to be examine for its predicate, i.e., who are its sample public. A poll of registered voters only has a value but one needs to know its value. Meaning one also has to know the poll's qualifiers, its strengths and weaknesses. What the poll suggests to us but also what the poll omits.

Reality is that all registered voters never vote. Turnout in an election of Potus always ranges from 55% of all registered voters upwards of 60% of all registered voters.

Hence the polling of Likely Voters is of the greater and significant value. Reputable and reliable polling organisations such as the one cited measure Likely Voters in the most realistic ways. A LV is determined, among several factors, whether the likely voter has in fact voted in the past. And how regularly or often, to include how motivated the LV might be in the present election context.

Even surveys of LVs have their margin of error variable, which reminds us that while reputable polling is reliable, it is always limited by its range of imprecision. We already know for instance that a reputable poll that comes out say, 50-50 could in fact be 53-47. Or it could have an even greater variable.

What the extremists need to recognise and acknowledge in respect of reliable polling of registered voters is the classic and respected Gallup formula as Gallup developed it decades ago. Which is that, on the morning of election day, and in Gallup's 24/7 rolling polling of all registered voters, the Democratic ticket for Potus needs to be at least 1.5% in the lead in order to win. It is a formula and it is tried, tested, true. This poll is not it btw.

The 2012 Potus campaign was Gallup's shakiest polling cycle ever, however, Gallup still came out of it with its election day and registered voters continuous overnight polling record intact. Election day morning is a long way off guyz so keep your shirts on over there on the extreme anti-Bill of Rights American Mussolini hysterical and punishing right.

[Publicus]

CjFhHmMUoAAzxFx.jpg

Ciqdw7tUUAE1Fpl.jpg

I hope HRC IS the Dems candidate. Against Bernie, the Donald probably wouldn't stand a chance ( I'd vote for Bernie ), but against HRC Trump is definitely in with a chance. People just don't like her.

The only places where Bernie has had his (supposed) socialism attacked without limit or restraint is on the global Internet led by the extremist rightwing and by other far out fringe Republicans.

If Bernie Sanders the socialist were the D nominee, he would be attacked and shredded by the rightwing extremists of all kinds and also by the usual and regular rightwing Republican attack machine. Then we would see unquestionably Bernie sink in the polling like the proverbial rock.

The posts by the extreme right alone to this website domain have, over the past six or so months, given everyone the clear and unmistakable nature of the rightwing and Republican attack machine against Bernie Sanders the socialist. So reality is Bernie would not stand a prayer of a chance of winning the general election. No chance or possibility whatsoever.

The D party knows this.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I think a lot of people on both sides who are posting definitively that either Trump or Clinton will win, with some posting all sorts of compelling evidence better take a deep breath. The Chicago Tribune article cites a new Washington Post-ABC news poll results

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-trump-poll-20160522-story.html

I guess this is what a "Hillary landslide" looks like! ?

The American Mussolini right in the US continues to run off into its extreme world of radical and anti-Bill of Rights extremes.

They for instance miss the nuance of this poll and of just about every other nuance occurring in the campaign.

The poll survey is of registered voters, which is fine.

Anyone who knows anything about polling knows however that any poll needs to be examine for its predicate, i.e., who are its sample public. A poll of registered voters only has a value but one needs to know its value. Meaning one also has to know the poll's qualifiers, its strengths and weaknesses. What the poll suggests to us but also what the poll omits.

Reality is that all registered voters never vote. Turnout in an election of Potus always ranges from 55% of all registered voters upwards of 60% of all registered voters.

Hence the polling of Likely Voters is of the greater and significant value. Reputable and reliable polling organisations such as the one cited measure Likely Voters in the most realistic ways. A LV is determined, among several factors, whether the likely voter has in fact voted in the past. And how regularly or often, to include how motivated the LV might be in the present election context.

Even surveys of LVs have their margin of error variable, which reminds us that while reputable polling is reliable, it is always limited by its range of imprecision. We already know for instance that a reputable poll that comes out say, 50-50 could in fact be 53-47. Or it could have an even greater variable.

What the extremists need to recognise and acknowledge in respect of reliable polling of registered voters is the classic and respected Gallup formula as Gallup developed it decades ago. Which is that, on the morning of election day, and in Gallup's 24/7 rolling polling of all registered voters, the Democratic ticket for Potus needs to be at least 1.5% in the lead in order to win. It is a formula and it is tried, tested, true. This poll is not it btw.

The 2012 Potus campaign was Gallup's shakiest polling cycle ever, however, Gallup still came out of it with its election day and registered voters continuous overnight polling record intact. Election day morning is a long way off guyz so keep your shirts on over there on the extreme anti-Bill of Rights American Mussolini hysterical and punishing right.

Nobodys reading your long-winded posts...try to find a good editor who works for cheap!

Your employment application is hereby denied. (STAMP)

I'm sure you'll find something however, even if it is waaay out over on the extreme far out rightwhinge and at the core of the anti-Bill of Rights American Mussolini punishing fringe.

[boomerangutang]

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pansuit's gonna win in a landside right? ???

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pantsuit's gonna win in a landside right...isnt that what all the snarky and full of themselves "commentators" been telling everyone for months? ???

If you're flummoxed and/or don't have anything to add to the discussion, it's ok to just not post.

[Jingthing]

Again, I don't blame supporters of the vile monster gloating now that the polls showing the race tighter than the pundits expected (wrong, yet again) but get real, polls aren't going to mean anything until after both conventions (comparing bumps and V.P. pick impacts) and then of course as the tactics get solidified on both sides, debates, etc. In other words, it's way too early for polls to mean anything.

For example, the polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton vs. the vile monster ... I've never believed that would actually hold up if Sanders was actually nominated, but alas, we'll never know because he won't be.

[BB24]

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pansuit's gonna win in a landside right? ???

Lost it x 2 ?

Sounds like you're going all defensive now...no need to worry, The Pantsuit's gonna win in a landside right...isnt that what all the snarky and full of themselves "commentators" been telling everyone for months? ???

If you're flummoxed and/or don't have anything to add to the discussion, it's ok to just not post.

Agreed - you have added nothing to the discussion for a long time - just more of the same immature personal attacks and insults (and pro-Dem internet cut and pastes).

Therefore, in your own words, you should only post something that will add to the discussion. I wonder - will that occur??

[iReason]

May 22, 2016

An updated detailed account of the mob underworld and the Bloviator's sleazy business dealings:

Just What Were Donald Trump's Ties to the Mob?

"But Trump was not clean as a whistle. Beginning three years earlier, he’d hired mobbed-up firms to erect Trump Tower and his Trump Plaza apartment building in Manhattan,

including buying ostensibly overpriced concrete from a company controlled by mafia chieftains Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno and Paul Castellano.

That story eventually came out in a federal investigation, which also concluded that in a construction industry saturated with mob influence,

the Trump Plaza apartment building most likely benefited from connections to racketeering."

"No other candidate for the White House this year has anything close to Trump’s record of repeated social and business dealings with mobsters, swindlers, and other crooks."

"Trump didn’t just do business with mobbed-up concrete companies: he also probably met personally with Salerno at the townhouse of notorious New York fixer Roy Cohn,

in a meeting recounted by a Cohn staffer...This came at a time when other developers in New York were pleading with the FBI to free them of mob control of the concrete business."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910#ixzz49T6wPir9

A man is known by the company he keeps...

[OMGImInPattaya]

Again, I don't blame supporters of the vile monster gloating now that the polls showing the race tighter than the pundits expected (wrong, yet again) but get real, polls aren't going to mean anything until after both conventions (comparing bumps and V.P. pick impacts) and then of course as the tactics get solidified on both sides, debates, etc. In other words, it's way too early for polls to mean anything.

For example, the polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton vs. the vile monster ... I've never believed that would actually hold up if Sanders was actually nominated, but alas, we'll never know because he won't be.

Considering the fact he wasn't given a snowman's chance in hell of first getting the Republican nomination, and if he did, was supposed to be steamrolled by the "Clinton machine," the fact that he's basically tied her in the polls (even if they're early) says allot.

I think what is says the most is how truly out of touch the media elites, Washington pundit class, the coastal "beautiful people," and the top political operatives of BOTH parties really are from the concerns or ordinary Americans. (The Sanders phenomenon mirrors this as well on the left.)

[thaibeachlovers]

Again, I don't blame supporters of the vile monster gloating now that the polls showing the race tighter than the pundits expected (wrong, yet again) but get real, polls aren't going to mean anything until after both conventions (comparing bumps and V.P. pick impacts) and then of course as the tactics get solidified on both sides, debates, etc. In other words, it's way too early for polls to mean anything.

For example, the polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton vs. the vile monster ... I've never believed that would actually hold up if Sanders was actually nominated, but alas, we'll never know because he won't be.

Considering the fact he wasn't given a snowman's chance in hell of first getting the Republican nomination, and if he did, was supposed to be steamrolled by the "Clinton machine," the fact that he's basically tied her in the polls (even if they're early) says allot.

I think what is says the most is how truly out of touch the media elites, Washington pundit class, the coastal "beautiful people," and the top political operatives of BOTH parties really are from the concerns or ordinary Americans. (The Sanders phenomenon mirrors this as well on the left.)

There are a couple of extremely PC hosts on a talkback channel I listen to. When Trump made the comment about penalising women that have abortions they were positively ecstatic because they thought this was a comment too far and the end of Trump. Needless to say they were completely wrong, but never admitted it.

Also, they were so stupid that they didn't realise Trump's base does not support abortion.

[Publicus]

Again, I don't blame supporters of the vile monster gloating now that the polls showing the race tighter than the pundits expected (wrong, yet again) but get real, polls aren't going to mean anything until after both conventions (comparing bumps and V.P. pick impacts) and then of course as the tactics get solidified on both sides, debates, etc. In other words, it's way too early for polls to mean anything.

For example, the polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton vs. the vile monster ... I've never believed that would actually hold up if Sanders was actually nominated, but alas, we'll never know because he won't be.

Considering the fact he wasn't given a snowman's chance in hell of first getting the Republican nomination, and if he did, was supposed to be steamrolled by the "Clinton machine," the fact that he's basically tied her in the polls (even if they're early) says allot.

I think what is says the most is how truly out of touch the media elites, Washington pundit class, the coastal "beautiful people," and the top political operatives of BOTH parties really are from the concerns or ordinary Americans. (The Sanders phenomenon mirrors this as well on the left.)

Neither party has held its convention yet so there isn't any nominee of either of 'em.

So the so-called "Clinton machine" hasn't started on Trump. Trump meanwhile has been in full feather since his Day One.

The rightwing extremist attack machine and its extension the Republican party attack machine have also been in full throat since Trump's Day One.

Trump's intemperate personality will do him in during the long haul of the campaign over the remaining five months plus a couple of more weeks. Trump's insanity is that he does indeed insist on doing the same thing over and over again.

Look at the states, each one of 'em, one by one....

Wall Street Journal: “Ohio, a state that has backed every presidential winner since 1964, presents both Mr. Trump’s best opportunity to carry a big swing state and reveals his team’s steep logistical challenges.”

“After winning the GOP nomination on a tight budget with a skeletal staff, Mr. Trump doesn’t have any general-election staff in the state, and senior aides in New York and Washington haven’t made contact with the state Republican Party. Efforts to recruit the state’s experienced operatives who helped elect Gov. John Kasich have so far been unsuccessful, people familiar with the matter said.”

“Mrs. Clinton has a small team of full-time aides in Ohio, where they are working to rebuild the organization that twice carried the state for President Barack Obama.”

The current YouGov poll out today has Ohio as Clinton 44 and Trump 39. This is consistent with the polling by the reputable and reliable polling organisations since the first of the year. (Ignore Rasmussen and ignore Quinnepiac cause they're strongly Republican in their bias.)

The D party wins Ohio, PA, VA, FL again by even one percent in each state and it's a blowout of Trump and the Republican party. Trump wins one or two of these states and he still loses by a significant Electoral College vote. Trump's only possibility among these four big Purple states is FL but with even historically Republican Cuban-Americans turning against him, Trump is looking at the political Grim Reaper from coast to coast and border to border. Trump would have to sweep all four states and nothing based in fact or reality puts him there.

HRC is consistently up in North Carolina by 2 percentage points. R's lose NC they lose the election. Lose the election big time because losing NC means R's will get the same treatment in VA next door and also right up the road in PA which is next door to OH.

Trump wins FL and all he'd get is swamped, and Trump shows no realistic possibility to win FL. Trump leaves the significant retired senior vote in FL aghast at his intemperate personality. Keep in mind there are very few retired senior citizen rightwingnut crackpot extremists in FL. As we already know, a slew of the retired wingnuts throughout the USA retired to abroad in the tropics of Southeast Asia. Those from Texas probably lead the pack of 'em.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Publicus

[OMGImInPattaya]

Again, I don't blame supporters of the vile monster gloating now that the polls showing the race tighter than the pundits expected (wrong, yet again) but get real, polls aren't going to mean anything until after both conventions (comparing bumps and V.P. pick impacts) and then of course as the tactics get solidified on both sides, debates, etc. In other words, it's way too early for polls to mean anything.

For example, the polls showing Sanders stronger than Clinton vs. the vile monster ... I've never believed that would actually hold up if Sanders was actually nominated, but alas, we'll never know because he won't be.

Considering the fact he wasn't given a snowman's chance in hell of first getting the Republican nomination, and if he did, was supposed to be steamrolled by the "Clinton machine," the fact that he's basically tied her in the polls (even if they're early) says allot.

I think what is says the most is how truly out of touch the media elites, Washington pundit class, the coastal "beautiful people," and the top political operatives of BOTH parties really are from the concerns or ordinary Americans. (The Sanders phenomenon mirrors this as well on the left.)

There are a couple of extremely PC hosts on a talkback channel I listen to. When Trump made the comment about penalising women that have abortions they were positively ecstatic because they thought this was a comment too far and the end of Trump. Needless to say they were completely wrong, but never admitted it.

Also, they were so stupid that they didn't realise Trump's base does not support abortion.

This is so true on so any things he's said and positions he's taken. Most people understand he's a deal maker and isn't running for dictator. If he wants to get stuff done, he'll have to work with Congress and of course he'll also be held in check by the Supremes.

I just don't get some of the hysterical posts and people (here on T-V and the public at large) and their vitriol against someone who's basically an East Coast moderate Republican. I think most of his more extreme positions are to just gin-up the base and he would, like most Presidents, govern in the middle to slight middle-right.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. If you do not wish to respond to someone, you do not have to.

[iReason]

Not a surprise the supposed, billionaire Bloviator doesn't want to reveal his tax returns. The only time he did, it showed he paid nothing:

Donald Trump paid no taxes for at least two years in the 1970s

"Donald Trump paid no federal income taxes for at least two years in the 1970s, a report from the New Jersey Division of Gambling Enforcement reveals.

The disclosure, first reported by The Washington Post on Friday, showed that the real estate mogul took advantage of a tax-code provision that allowed developers to report negative income.

He claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, which allowed him to avoid paying taxes.

The Post notes that Trump had told The New York Times a few years earlier that he was worth more than $200 million."

"This comes as Trump, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, refuses to release his more recent tax returns,

because he claims he can't while he's under federal audit. (That is a lie) He also said last week that his tax rate is "none of your business."

"Trump has blasted corporate executives for taking advantage of tax loopholes,

like the "carried interest loophole", to avoid paying taxes and says the current tax code harms the middle class."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-paid-no-taxes-for-at-least-two-years-in-the-1970s/

Hypocrisy defined.

Want another example? The Bloviator's list of prospective V.P.'s must submit their tax records to him.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Not a surprise the supposed, billionaire Bloviator doesn't want to reveal his tax returns. The only time he did, it showed he paid nothing:

Donald Trump paid no taxes for at least two years in the 1970s

"Donald Trump paid no federal income taxes for at least two years in the 1970s, a report from the New Jersey Division of Gambling Enforcement reveals.

The disclosure, first reported by The Washington Post on Friday, showed that the real estate mogul took advantage of a tax-code provision that allowed developers to report negative income.

He claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, which allowed him to avoid paying taxes.

The Post notes that Trump had told The New York Times a few years earlier that he was worth more than $200 million."

"This comes as Trump, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, refuses to release his more recent tax returns,

because he claims he can't while he's under federal audit. (That is a lie) He also said last week that his tax rate is "none of your business."

"Trump has blasted corporate executives for taking advantage of tax loopholes,

like the "carried interest loophole", to avoid paying taxes and says the current tax code harms the middle class."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-paid-no-taxes-for-at-least-two-years-in-the-1970s/

Hypocrisy defined.

Want another example? The Bloviator's list of prospective V.P.'s must submit their tax records to him.

Do you really think anyone cares about someone's taxes from 40 years ago...that's really reaching (in addition to Bezos' "Amazon Post" carrying water for the Washington establishment in return for favorable regulatory and tax treatment for Amazon). You're always posting tidbits that nobody cares about...like someone using a legal provision in the tax code to save money. I think EVERYBODY in America does that; and would be considered a fool or a sucker if they didn't. The numbers may be large in a rich person's case but the principle of minimizing one's taxes is the same.

I"m sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but Americans, by and large, are not Swedes, Danes, French, or even Brits. who gladly hand over large amounts of their hard-earned money to the government, despite what Bernie may wish, so stories like this will have ZERO negative effect on Trump. It seems you've shot a blank again...time to reload.

Edited May 23, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[DrTuner]

Sort of boring now, digging some scraps from last millennium. So when does the real mudfight begin?

[iReason]

Trump invests in the same companies he bashes

"Maybe Donald Trump never learned the phrase “put your money where your mouth is.” Upon review of his Personal Financial Disclosure,

it turns out that presumed Republican nominee has invested and profited from multiple companies he’s slammed on the trail:"

Mondelez International, Ford, General Electric, Disney, Apple, United Technologies Corporation

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/18/trump-invests-same-companies-he-bashes/84558700/

Perhaps he's in the process of divesting in these companies he has bashed.

Heck, maybe even discontinuing to produce his apparel line in the sweat shops of Bangladesh, China and Mexico.

Hypocrisy. One shallow human...