Historically true, but if she's built up an insurmountable lead from early voting that could change things.
Well, if we are going to give any credence to FactCheck, Trump lies way more than Clinton- not even close. IMO.
But, anyway, let me put it this way- my son is surrounded by some people who all supported Sanders b/c "Free College! Free College!" (of course, many of them are almost done, so ???). And others who support a candidate without even knowing much about them. Now, I understand the argument for free college, but I have to admit, as someone who worked really hard- 40 hours per week- to put myself through school at SHSU, I guess the whole notion of free college feels weird to me. Same with the workplace. Most of the clients I have are hard-working achievers, but you've got that select group who have that entitlement mentality. I think we can all agree that some Americans get the short end of the stick, and there's something which should be done about that. At the same time, let's face it- we all probably know a handful of people out there who are, well, lazy (there's one in my family right now- he is a perennial member of the Job-of-the-Month Club). As a person who works hard, lazy people piss me off. I feel like saying, "If you're creative and work hard, there are ways you can make ends meet. Get off your ass and get moving!" But then some.... they do need help. I think we all agree on that. When it comes down to it, I'm probably like a lot of people out there- a mass of contradictions. The question is: how do we reconcile these things? Maybe it's always going to be like that and you learn to live with the contradictions, but do the best you can to reconcile them and follow the sage advice of Spike Lee: "Do The Right Thing."
I hear this candidate is really popular with a lot of Florida voters, as well as re-runs of the Andy Griffith show.
Unsurprisingly, false equivalency is a key part of the self-deception of Trump supporters like @Granville, @Falcons Talon etc. They JUST KNOW BETTER about HIllary than anybody else, and 35 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of fruitless investigation has found. This is the mystical power of the White Internet Non Elite (WhINE's) I look forward to hearing their ideas on Hillary Clinton - really I do. I bet they are very insightful.
Dude... One if these candidates actually knows the process to turn a bill into law and doesn't receive their military strategy from Hollywood. There is no equivalency here.
The thing is, we don't even know the nature of the classified emails. Who classifies them? Can any of them be de-classified by a Secretary of State? What was the nature of the content? I say it's a no-win b/c anyone can say, "We can't reveal the markings, the content of the email, etc." Literally nothing can be said about this due to confidentiality. Someone made a comparison to OJ (stupid, but whatever). OK, so we saw the evidence- we knew there was blood on the Bronco, we saw multiple other pieces of evidence, etc. I actually wish they would investigate it further, just bring it all out in the open, and if she transmitted highly classified information, then let her suffer the consequences. Just a lot of questions.
In The Pentagon Papers case, a classified study was published revealing that four administrations had misled the American public about their intentions in the Vietnam War, increasing the credibility gap. Russo and Ellsberg were prosecuted under Espionage Law. The case prompted Harold Edgar & Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. to write a review of Espionage law in the 1973 Columbia Law Review. Their article was entitled "The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information". In it, they point out that Espionage law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. They point out that Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal. i.e. in 18 U.S.C. § 798 congress specifically criminalized leaking cryptographic information that is classified, but when it passed the law it specifically stated the law didn't criminalize disclosing other types of classified information.[8] What if the classified information sent from Clinton's server was not national defense information?
You know he won his nomination fair and square unlike his opponent so I'm willing to believe he connects more to the wishes and sufferings of the common folk than the career politicians. Yeah. Hillary gets her directive from her rich friends. That helps me sleep at night. I'd rather take my chances with the well meaning novice over the competent sellout.
I'm genuinely curious so serious answer please. What would Donald Trump have to do in the private sector for you to consider him equally as corrupt as Hillary in the public sector? Or are individuals in the private sector inherently less corrupt than the public sector?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6883aacba64_story.html?utm_term=.5882b1ad8f4e In this article, they state that an item which was a mere public statement was marked as classified incorrectly. So, what if that is the case here? Seems to me that a whole bunch of people are doing a whole lot of talking about this matter without even knowing how the process works. If you read this article- or Google another one- this is a pretty messed-up system. What if it turns out that some of those classified items shouldn't have been classified in the first place- and that the Secretary of State had the authority to de-classify them? As much as we have all been talking about this issue (and I do understand the issue with housing classified information on a private server), very little has been said about the entire issue of classification. Not saying she's innocent per se, just that there's a lot we still don't know. Maybe an investigation would be the absolutel best thing for all sides.
The guy has 47 lawsuits against him right now. He lies more than any candidate, not even close. This is the guy we need to trust? GMAB.
This is one of the most successful sales job that Trump has done. The idea that he is actually well meaning. Trump's history is littered with examples of him gaming the system, exploiting contractors and others all for his enrichment. It's something that he brags about. Yet somehow many have taken the idea that a man who essentially admits he cons people is now a man of the people out to protect the little guy.
What he has done in the private sector doesn't effect national security, foreign relations, the economy or laws of the land. If I were a stock holder in his company I'd be yelling from the top of my lungs if he had done something illegal. As it is, I will allow the legal system, criminal or civil, to determine his wrong doing and assess punishment. My wife and I just voted for Johnson (reluctantly) and all other Republicans on the ballot. I don't trust Trump but I'm convinced Hillary broke the law as an elected and appointed government official she and doesn't deserve to be on the ballot.
That's inaccurate. He gamed the system. I don't fault him on that for anything. He used the tax code to its full extent, on the advice of tax attorneys. Just think about it - people who find something wrong about this are people who want to pay more tax than they should. Aren't they, Idk, idiots? He doesn't brag about stiffing people. I admit, some of those cases are rather dodgy but I'll let the courts decide. More pertinently to the topic, he says he did that because he wasn't satisfied with the work - he doesn't brag about it. Most importantly, his platform during his campaign has been good - bringing back jobs, kicking out illegals, stopping lobbying. The people who think Trump conned people into getting the nomination are utterly clueless. Trump didn't sell anything. If anything, it's been the other way around. He won the nomination because he said the things people have been saying. He's been the candidate who's really listened to people in a long time.
Actually yes he has. He's said he makes great deals which generally means that he stiffs somebody else to his benefit. Regarding him saying he wasn't satisfied with the work considering the architect he stiffed over the clubhouse for a Trump golf course he had praised and then didn't pay up what he had agreed to. This is a clubhouse that Trump has cited as one of his great properties. Bragging indeed. Trump through his career has said all sorts of things to investors, tenants, attendees at Trump University, buyers and etc.. about how great things are going to be yet he's still been sued several times and left many people unpaid. This is just another sales job.
Unreal! We have a candidate that is actually going to trial next month for racketeering and rape charges that is getting more of a pass for his indiscretions than someone who hasn't even been brought up on any changes. for anything
