comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
You know Clinton has said she has a public stance on things, and a private one that she really believes in.

..............

No, I don't know what she privately thinks on taxes. Neither do you. But I bet you quote wikileaks to me as if that backs anything up.

What we do know for certain is that Clinton has declared her tax return for the year as public record. Trump has not.

Why do you think he has not?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read her e-mail you would know. Ignorance is no excuse

She voted to give the bankers trillions

................

That isn't the same as her giving them trillions is it?

Congress voted it, many of which were republican.

So, you are just lying.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
She is the one sabre rattling angling for a war with Russia

................

No she isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So threatening to fire on Russian planes was a real threat. WW3 here we come

comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
Whilst both candidates are less than trustworthy, HC has been in politics her entire adult life. She at least, has the basic qualifications. In fact she is more than qualified.

Trump can offer nothing. Which is why he has focused on anything but policy. His economic policy for example has been universally ridiculed by economists. So much so, he's had to completely rework it on a number of occasions.

While neither are a great choice, at least HC has the practical intelligence to hold office.

<A href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/</A>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Her record has shown what a despicable callous human being she is and how she cares little about the people only her donors and is a threat to world peace.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet still unconditionally more qualified to be POTUS than DT.

Not because I think she’s a great politician, or I’m keen on her. Nor because I think she is trustworthy.

Because she represents considerably less risk than DT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She is the one sabre rattling angling for a war with Russia, not Trump
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if that were true, or possible, the POTUS cannot take the US to war individually.

The adminstration would need to go through congress etc etc which, as things stand, look like they couldn’t agree on anything.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 seconds ago
She voted to give the bankers trillions

................

That isn't the same as her giving them trillions is it?

Congress voted it, many of which were republican.

So, you are just lying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump never.

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
D4thincarnation

“The bankers” had nothing to do with DT’s bankruptcy.

DT used bankruptcy as (yet another) tax avoidance scheme. Wall St had no involvement whatsoever. It was an arrangement of his own doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's common sense tbh why would he pay more tax when there are legal ways to pay less. it's up to the government to close loopholes and get people to pay tax if they want.

comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 seconds ago
She voted to give the bankers trillions

................

That isn't the same as her giving them trillions is it?

Congress voted it, many of which were republican.

So, you are just lying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump never.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow

Why not D4?

If you read her e-mail you would know.

...............

I am waiting for some one to show it to me. Not a link to twenty thousand of them, but any specific one will do.

This was why no one took much notice of wikileaks. There wasn't anything damning in them.

The idiot Donald can't point to a specific. He just keeps saying they are terrible, and the mindless morons who follow him lap it up.

8bit

Not saying DT broke any federal tax laws (we don’t know that [yet] as his tax returns remain under IRS investigation).

What I was stating that Wall St (as alleged by D4) had nothing to do with DT’s bankruptcy orders.

DT is as close to Wall St however as HC. Yet portrays (for the purposes of his POTUS candidacy) to be an anti-establishment figure.

How is he close to wall street? Hillary is funded by them, gives paid speeches to them and gives more info about her plans than she does to the public. Trump winning would be a nightmare for wall street.

Trump is in favor for less regulations on Wall St. That alone should put him on their good side.

Hillary, beats me. She say she's going to raise corporate taxes and tax the wealthy. Well hell, that sounds like she's going to squeeze Wall St for every penny's they've got but yet Wall St is still paying her. Probably paid her to keep them off the hook for illegal financial activities.

6 more days and I still haven't really made up my mind yet though I think Hillary and her corruptness is going to land us in a world of trouble. Trump's loose cannon of a mouth is too.

I think with our 3 branches of government in place, checks and balances, and a strong cabinet for Trump should help him make the right choices that aren't so extreme and unconstitutional. Trump will have some power but not all of it.

Here is an interesting take on the Bank Bail out that Trump has taken Clinton to task on.

DONALD TRUMP

"Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going.
—April 15, 2009, CNN interview

HILLARY CLINTON

"I think the banks of New York and our other financial institutions are probably the biggest winners in this, which is one of the reasons why in the end, despite my serious questions about it, I supported it.
—Oct. 2, 2008, WNYC radio interview

..................

This whole article is quite good. Trump and Clinton actually agree on most things here.


http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/where-do-clinton-and-trump-stand-on-wall-street/

8bit

I think the term “Wall St” has muddied the waters in this debate. What is Wall St? It’s the US version of Canary Wharf. It’s a multitude of financial bodies, investment banks, finance houses, traders etc. etc.

It therefore does not speak with one voice, nor have a united view. On either candidate.

DT and his businesses over the years have benefited greatly from dealings with Wall St banks. One deal in particular he borrowed (can’t recall the lender) funds to purchase cheap Chinese steel which in turn were concealed through the banking system.

I also understand he owes $250 million to banks for various real estate projects that have, (like many of his ventures) disintegrated.

When HC’s ties to Wall St became front and centre, DT stopped attending Wall St fundraisers, charity events etc and, (much like his relationship with the Clintons) began to (publically) disassociate himself with Wall St.

But he's not bought by anyone, he has donors but not to the level or the kind of industries Hillary has. He doesn't need to scratch anyone's back. I don't believe everything he says, he need to play the game to get elected but he's running for the right reasons instead of ulterior motives.

But he's not bought by anyone, he has donors but not to the level or the kind of industries Hillary has.

..................

Read the link I put up. If Wall Street has bought her off, she has a funny way of showing it.

8bit

You're being a little naïve if you think DT is running for any reason other than self-interest. He’s spent his entire adult life exploiting the less fortunate, and you think he’s somehow ‘seen the light’ and become benevolent?

As so far as the election is concerned he has had many donors. Many of which however had to abandon him due to pu$$ygate and other allegations he is facing.

However like any POTUS he will have congressional donors and corporate lobbyists. He’s driven by wealth. He’ll be bought and sold just like the rest of them. Including HC.

He's been talking about running for president, the same economic issues and incompetence of politicians and the establishment for decades. He's a billionaire already who needs nothing, don't see what he has to gain from this. Not to mention all the hate he's getting from running, the scrutiny and prob so many people wanting to assasinate him

VC I can't read it now will check it out later

8bit

I think if Trump had stick to working out policies and talking about them after he won the primaries, he would have waltzed into the White House.

Obviously he would have had to drop the stupid ones first.

The Dems are now very much regretting backing Clinton and now wish they had thrown their weight behind Bernie.

The podesta emails already showed that Hilary is telling wall street the opposite of what she is saying publicly

The Dems wanted Hillary in from the get go. Don't think they changed their minds on that even on top of the email scandal that originated from last year.

The Super-delegates and distributions are what did Bernie in during the primaries despite him winning the popular votes.

The podesta emails already showed that Hilary is telling wall street the opposite of what she is saying publicly

...........

No they don't. This is just something you have read and have taken at face value.

What did they actually mean then?

What did they actually mean then?

...............

Show me them? No one can.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
What did they actually mean then?

...............

Show me them? No one can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

"*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY* *Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*"