[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Aerion Brightflame]

Sorry interfering with and preventing 'not for profit' research is something you think should happen? Why? What possible reason do you want to interfere with research that advances us as a species? Becuase if your argument is 'Well it's just a money sink' that's insane to me, because research is an investment and generally the countries that have been the most successful are the ones who encourage research and advancement in all it's forms, not who stifle it. 

 

You just don't make a nation 'great' by undermining research. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sorry interfering with and preventing 'not for profit' research is something you think should happen? Why? What possible reason do you want to interfere with research that advances us as a species? Becuase if your argument is 'Well it's just a money sink' that's insane to me, because research is an investment and generally the countries that have been the most successful are the ones who encourage research and advancement in all it's forms, not who stifle it. 

 

You just don't make a nation 'great' by undermining research.

 

Which point is this? The media one?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Which point is this? The media one?

 

Point 6. The one where he talks about interfering with 'liberal leaning' universities and not-for-profit research enterprises by interfering with grants. 

 

I know you have a distaste for all things liberal, but you don't interfere with research negatively if you actually want to improve your nation years down the line. That includes the research parts of universities. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Point 6. The one where he talks about interfering with 'liberal leaning' universities and not-for-profit research enterprises by interfering with grants. 

 

I know you have a distaste for all things liberal, but you don't interfere with research negatively if you actually want to improve your nation years down the line. That includes the research parts of universities. 

Point six is more not banning conservative speakers from speaking or sheet like this

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/25/fired-mizzou-professor-melissa-click-this-is-all-about-racial-politics.html

 

 

Isn't it a bit unfair to say I have a distaste with all things liberal, just because I don't think a calling a conservative jew a nazi and group hugs in a safe space, is proper?

That type of sheet needs to go

[Aerion Brightflame]

No it's not. It's talking about grant money, and non-profit research. 

 

It's about depriving organisations that conduct research money. There is no talk about 'safe spaces' or 'harassment' beyond mentioning the word liberal. If it were about stopping that kind of s***, it wouldn't mention grants and it wouldn't mention non-profits because neither of those have anything to do with this s***. 

 

I think you are trying to place your own issues onto that point, not what it's actually talking about. Because no way in hell is talking about depriving research grant have any relevance on safe spaces. 

[Dad]

So we're okay with reducing taxes for the 1% again?  And what was the logical explanation behind this?  Trickle down economics?

[cr47t]

So we're okay with reducing taxes for the 1% again?  And what was the logical explanation behind this?  Trickle down economics?

I, for one, am NOT okay with reducing taxes for the 1% again, and believe that trickle down economics is not a working solution. (While it was a nice idea it doesn't seem to work out.)

 

Also here's the article we were discussing in case anyone missed it; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/donald-trump-damage_b_11402038.html

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So we're okay with reducing taxes for the 1% again? And what was the logical explanation behind this? Trickle down economics?

I've explained why it works if the government doesn't half ass the second part of it (the labor market)

I, for one, am NOT okay with reducing taxes for the 1% again, and believe that trickle down economics is not a working solution. (While it was a nice idea it doesn't seem to work out.)

 

Also here's the article we were discussing in case anyone missed it; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/donald-trump-damage_b_11402038.html

Can work. Just have to make sure the labor market isn't an monopsony

Truth be told, monopolies aren't even that bad. Monopsony on the other hand squeeze the wealth out of people

No it's not. It's talking about grant money, and non-profit research.

 

It's about depriving organisations that conduct research money. There is no talk about 'safe spaces' or 'harassment' beyond mentioning the word liberal. If it were about stopping that kind of s***, it wouldn't mention grants and it wouldn't mention non-profits because neither of those have anything to do with this s***.

 

I think you are trying to place your own issues onto that point, not what it's actually talking about. Because no way in hell is talking about depriving research grant have any relevance on safe spaces.

 

Ehh, I'm not entirely sure on that. The best way to get uni to crack down on safe-zones and PCWarfare is to crack down on federal funding. Clinton foundation is a "non-profit" there's a lot of shady sheet in that area that needs oversight regardless

 

I'll explain again about Supply Side econ. Lowering corporate taxes shifts supply (and marginal cost) down and right. That means more quantity produced for cheaper price. The labor market then needs to shift some of the profit to the workers. Which is conveniently ignored by the republicans, but not by Trump. He's the first person to actually understand how to make SSE work

[Aerion Brightflame]

Trickle down economics still relies on the 1% actually spending money instead of hoarding it. Which is the one thing you can't do. I would say you can't tax them either, but that's a little less certain (Saying you can't tax them fairly is fine). 

 

These people will either find ways to avoid spending money, or they will buy things that have minimal impact on the rest of us - Like property and companies. Essentially just exchanging money with the rest of the rich, never really filtering it down. The rest of it, like clothing and cars make up a tiny portion of there wealth and because they can buy quality they don't have to buy as many as often so it doesn't matter that much. 

 

So personally the idea of removing more of the little tax that the rich do pay, like inheritance tax and estate tax, kinda sticks out to me because f*** if they are paying all of the income tax they are meant to. 

 

EDIT:

 

And yes, everyone knows that you have to share the increased profits from Trickle down economics in order for it too work. But that's the catch - You cannot force it to happen. It hasn't since inception. 

 

And the Clinton is not a non-profit that does research. It's irrelevant to that, and threatening the grant funding off all the non-profit research groups out there because of one foundation is stupid. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trickle down economics still relies on the 1% actually spending money instead of hoarding it. Which is the one thing you can't do. I would say you can't tax them either, but that's a little less certain (Saying you can't tax them fairly is fine).

 

These people will either find ways to avoid spending money, or they will buy things that have minimal impact on the rest of us - Like property and companies. Essentially just exchanging money with the rest of the rich, never really filtering it down. The rest of it, like clothing and cars make up a tiny portion of there wealth and because they can buy quality they don't have to buy as many as often so it doesn't matter that much.

 

So personally the idea of removing more of the little tax that the rich do pay, like inheritance tax and estate tax, kinda sticks out to me because f*** if they are paying all of the income tax they are meant to.

 

EDIT:

 

And yes, everyone knows that you have to share the increased profits from Trickle down economics in order for it too work. But that's the catch - You cannot force it to happen. It hasn't since inception.

Yes, you can

 

 

Hint hint: a wage increase in the labor market and a the tax drop/subsidy in the product market are identical from the firms standpoint

 

Also the Don advocated closing up Tax loopholes and offshore accounts as well as give the companies a 1 time re-introduction chance. The man has thought of it all

 

Buying houses and American products, even if it's small for them, is really good for those dying industries in the US actually

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM&t=49m29s

 

48:00 onwards is really interesting 

[Aerion Brightflame]

What part of it makes companies give more money to the employees though? 

 

You've said you lower the taxes, company profit increases. But you simply can't make the CEO share that money with the employees - It will be given to the shareholders in some form or other (Because they are entirely in it for profit) and the CEO gets a bigger bonus because the shareholders are more successful and hence has 'earned it'. 

 

At no point is there anything but a moral obligation to divide increased profits among employees. But big companies and the massively wealthy individuals who invest in shares have a financial motivation not to share the profits - They can earn more from not dividing among the employees. I may be wrong on the technicalities of this part, but the principle remains the same. 

 

And you still can't make the 1% spend any more than a fraction of there accumulated wealth. There is a point where they simply have too much money, and thus large chunks of there money they just sit on and do nothing with. Or they buy property, or shares. Things that don't trickle money down. And buying property isn't good, because there is a housing crisis and they do literally nothing with the property. It actually serves to price people out of cities because tycoons buy local apartment and drive prices up, which is terrible in a city focused economy. 

 

Your entire argument, and the entire argument for trickle down economics is based around the idea of the companies doing the decent thing. But it has been proven constantly that this does not happen. Hence why wages of the majority have stagnated whilst the wages of the CEO's and such has skyrocketed. 

 

Likewise Trump, as a member of the 1%, has every incentive to reduce the amount of tax they pay because it saves him money. He saves million from the inheritance tax and the . But he has no incentive to close the tax loopholes (Firmly enough to prevent others) because it costs him more money. You are once again relying on an incredibly rich business man to do the moral thing for the little guy - Which history has shown doesn't happen with the majority of them. Hell Trump even has a history of shitting on the little guy by trying to short them of money for services rendered. 

 

You are literally saying 'I know that trickle down economics hasn't worked in the past because the rich guys didn't do there part after we there lowered taxes, but don't worry this rich says he'll make it work after he's lowered his taxes so it's all gucci'. It's the exact same thing over again. It's actually the definition of insanity. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What part of it makes companies give more money to the employees though? 

 

You've said you lower the taxes, company profit increases. But you simply can't make the CEO share that money with the employees - It will be given to the shareholders in some form or other (Because they are entirely in it for profit) and the CEO gets a bigger bonus because the shareholders are more successful and hence has 'earned it'. 

 

At no point is there anything but a moral obligation to divide increased profits among employees. But big companies and the massively wealthy individuals who invest in shares have a financial motivation not to share the profits - They can earn more from not dividing among the employees. I may be wrong on the technicalities of this part, but the principle remains the same. 

 

And you still can't make the 1% spend any more than a fraction of there accumulated wealth. There is a point where they simply have too much money, and thus large chunks of there money they just sit on and do nothing with. Or they buy property, or shares. Things that don't trickle money down. And buying property isn't good, because there is a housing crisis and they do literally nothing with the property. It actually serves to price people out of cities because tycoons buy local apartment and drive prices up, which is terrible in a city focused economy. 

 

Your entire argument, and the entire argument for trickle down economics is based around the idea of the companies doing the decent thing. But it has been proven constantly that this does not happen. Hence why wages of the majority have stagnated whilst the wages of the CEO's and such has skyrocketed. 

 

Likewise Trump, as a member of the 1%, has every incentive to reduce the amount of tax they pay because it saves him money. He saves million from the inheritance tax and the . But he has no incentive to close the tax loopholes (Firmly enough to prevent others) because it costs him more money. You are once again relying on an incredibly rich business man to do the moral thing for the little guy - Which history has shown doesn't happen with the majority of them. Hell Trump even has a history of shitting on the little guy by trying to short them of money for services rendered. 

 

You are literally saying 'I know that trickle down economics hasn't worked in the past because the rich guys didn't do there part after we there lowered taxes, but don't worry this rich says he'll make it work after he's lowered his taxes so it's all gucci'. It's the exact same thing over again. 

Well it tends to be that the workers in the labor market are the same consumers buying in the product market. So giving more to the workers increases disposable income in the product market and shifts the demand function up, thus increasing profit even further.

 

I agree 100% that not everyone will just share out of the goodness of their heart. Which is why you increase the minimum wage to a living wage to give the workers more to spend

 

I'm saying what his Tax plan says. I can't read his mind, based on his policies so far, he has a good chance of getting SSE to work finally

 

Edit: You know two things that DO ruin that delicate balance? 1) Mass Imports (cough cough TPP, NAFTA) 2) Underutilized Labor Force (cough cough Illegals, rampant H1B's)

 

Anyway thoughts on Russian control of 20% of the US's uranium thanks to the Clintons?

[Dad]

Trump doesn't want to increase wage and lower taxes for the rich.  So someone needs to clear up the bs.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump doesn't want to increase wage and lower taxes for the rich.  So someone needs to clear up the bs.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/278778-trump-expresses-openness-to-raising-minimum-wage

[Aerion Brightflame]

But employees will only make up a fraction of the consumer base for that company - Increasing the worker wage would significantly increase costs but only marginally impact profits compared to what it would be before - Especially when you are in companies that people already purchase from and hence increasing the wage won't actually increase the amount bought (Because the people working are already buying from it). If companies actually profited more by sharing and get people to purchase in store, wages wouldn't be stagnant and wouldn't have been stagnant for like 2 decades. 

 

But there's no obligation for companies to actually keep as many workers on if you increase the minimum wage. They can decide just to let go of some staff to keep profit the same whilst meeting the new legal requirement. And it's entirely possible. If you can force 2 guys to do the work of 4 and save some money in the process, with capitalism why wouldn't you? 

 

Hell you've got corporations like Wall-mart who actually profit from keeping people in abject poverty with shitty wages because they money from the government due to food stamps. They can drive the wage down to it's bare minimum, keep workers in poverty, get them on food stamps which they then spend in wall-mart. And hence get money from nothing. 

 

SSE economics just does not work in reality without either some level of UBI, or a lot of regulations forcing the profit to go where it is needed. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But employees will only make up a fraction of the consumer base for that company - Increasing the worker wage would significantly increase costs but only marginally impact profits compared to what it would be before - Especially when you are in companies that people already purchase from and hence increasing the wage won't actually increase the amount bought (Because the people working are already buying from it). If companies actually profited more by sharing and get people to purchase in store, wages wouldn't be stagnant and wouldn't have been stagnant for like 2 decades. 

 

But there's no obligation for companies to actually keep as many workers on if you increase the minimum wage. They can decide just to let go of some staff to keep profit the same whilst meeting the new legal requirement. And it's entirely possible. If you can force 2 guys to do the work of 4 and save some money in the process, with capitalism why wouldn't you? 

 

Hell you've got corporations like Wall-mart who actually profit from keeping people in abject poverty with shitty wages because they money from the government due to food stamps. They can drive the wage down to it's bare minimum, keep workers in poverty, get them on food stamps which they then spend in wall-mart. And hence get money from nothing. 

 

SSE economics just does not work in reality without either some level of UBI, or a lot of regulations forcing the profit to go where it is needed. 

It's about equal actually. Because like I said a tax increase in the labor market is theoretically equal to a wage increase in the labor market. So the overall cost function for the firm will stay about equal. You could subsidize/incentive them to expand (and thus hire more workers) without a minimum wage even, but that's a bit more complicated to do and would require messing with trade deals. Not sure if Trump is talking about that, (possible since he's bashing NAFTA/TPP), but I could explain it if you want me to

 

It's not been working for 2 decades because of what I said. Illegal Immigration (and amnesty) as well as god awful trade deals for our country. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-will-cost-america/2013/05/06/e5d19afc-b661-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html?utm_term=.581f3ca87eab

 

If you don't believe me. You can't try to make SSE work with one hand and supplant it with the other and then say, look it didn't work...well no sheet sherlock

 

And he's talked about that too. The one way to fix walmart is to kill the Food Stamp revenue, which is why he wants to engage in public infrastructure projects (that are "good" non-demeaning jobs) to put the low income citizens back to work and break the food-stamp reliance

 

Walmart also wouldn't get a subsidy if they gov finds out they're doing this obv

 

Imma go grab a bite, so if I don't respond right away there's a reason

 

Solution:

 

1)Decrease Corporate Taxes

2)Clean out the number of Tax Brackets 

3)Don't give Amnesty

4)Offer American companies with offshore money a one time exception to bring money back in

5)Close Tax Loopholes

6)Increase MW (or not depending on 7)

7)Don't sign TPP like deals as is

8)Massive Public Infrastructure projects

9)Lower Firm regulations

 

 

Do all that and you'd be surprised what kinda doors open up, do 1-3 of the 9 and yeh...it's not gonna work lol

[Aerion Brightflame]

SSE hasn't been working for 2 decades in more nations than the US you realise? It's not worked well... anywhere. No nation that was already modernised has benefited from SSE in the long run I believe. Which is a lot of nations, and should tell you a lot about it as an idea. 

 

But really I would be fine if SSE was the economic system so long as UBI existed. With UBI, it frankly doesn't matter if the 1% has most of the worlds wealth, because people won't starve because of it, they won't be deprived of there homes. People will be able to live, and embrace there dreams of say starting up small businesses, and have more disposable income (Because literally any money they make would be disposable income). 

 

But that's my somewhat funny belief - That we need socialism in order to make capitalism really work without imploding things. Because there are things necessary to modern life where capitalism simply breaks down. 

 

I'm not really interested in talking about the SSE anymore, because we've said our points and will just repeat now. My argument is that it can't work because it relies on the 1% being generous of which there is currently no incentive to do (And I think it is a waste of government money to give incentive for them to do so. I would rather than money just go straight to the people). Your argument is that SSE has never really been applied properly so the decades of abject global failure mean nothing, and hence you want to give it one last go and trust a billionaire to do the part that benefits us not just the part that benefits him. 

 

I understand your argument, you understand mine, we won't come to an accord on it and I will just start getting petty otherwise so. 

[cr47t]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2016-election-is-about-dividing-up-the-pie/

 

Discuss.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

sheet bro really?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

 

Yup, most of us are afraid of people like you. Most of us aren't racist. Most of us realize either through understand economics or just by "feeling" economics that Illegals are bad for this country. Most of us don't want to brush aside the fact that German intelligence just confirmed that Daesh death squads are infiltrating refugees. Most of us are hurting. But if we say it, we get the same response from people like you of a "you're a funking a Bigoted, xenophobic, racist....[insert buzzword adjective here]...while male"

 

So yeah, we are a majority, but most of use are afraid to speak, because you guys are "right" and we're just resentful trash.

 

 

INB4 someone brings up Hillary supporters being bashed for supporting a crook or Bernie people for supporting a "socialist"...the media and everyone else doesn't egg that on nearly as much. People like Bill Maher get a standing ovation for saying sheet like Trump voters are mentally deficient because their mother's drank during pregnancy. Tell me where you see people say that about Hillary or Bernie supporters.

 

So yeah, we are a silent majority, and while you may have silenced us for now, we're not going anywhere and our votes will show you that in November

 

EDIT:

 

Jesus Christ Winter, I already said it was media bullshit. I know that wasn't Trump's intention, even though you should at least acknowledge that in the context Trump was speaking his comments could have had that meaning.

 

I have no idea why you are trying to guilt me out for being 'pro-hillary' by posting anti Trump ads - The thing is, Hilary being scum doesn't make Trump an angel either. He says a lot of bullshit, and a lot of things that people should question as insane. And yet you defend these comments because you assume any anti-Trump media piece is biased bollocks. (Don't say 'oh I don't believe Trump is perfect. I'm not saying you do, I'm saying specifically in this context you take any comment that writes about Trump's character or a controversy as being truthful'). It's not libel if it's taking the words from his mouth and including his sides defence Winter.

 

And if someone shoots Hilary or one of the judges, and says 'Trump told me too' you can look back at the wording on this speech and you can see 'Oh s***, this is where he got the idea from. This gun-scaring bollocks designed to make people angry'. And when it comes from a man who at one stage in the electorial cycle advocated for his supporters to be violent, you can understand why people who hear the comment might doubt the altruistic meaning. Especially since he's talking about a context where the political power of the 2A group has no meaning.

 

Thank you, thank for you for bringing up Hillary's comment about hitting Obama - 'We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California' . That is as vague a comment as Trump's here in terms of calling for a hit - And yet somehow Trump's comment wasn't calling for a hit but Hillary was? Is it just because Hillary happened to say this one hmm?

 

How about that CNN story earlier, where Trump blatantly says that Hillary isn't allowed to make mistakes but Mike Pence his second is? How about all of the the s*** Trump, the apparently transparent candidate has said, that his supporters have had to go 'Well he didn't mean that, he meant X'. How about Hillary being the bought and paid for candidate when Trump's advisers are in the majority cronies whom he is beholden too? You've still not provided any shred of proof as to the 'political assassination' and yet you call me out on posting conspiracies?

 

This is debates, it's meant to be about discussion. You insist on trying to make it personal instead (In my post, every last one of my comments is about Trump. In yours you insist on trying to associate me with Hillary to discredit me). Please don't. I have already expressed a dislike for both candidates, I have posted damming articles about both candidates. Right now most of the negative s*** is about Trump, not Hillary. When I see negative s*** about Hillary that I think warrants discussion, I will post it. It is as simple as that.

 

Please stop making this s*** personal. It's just irritating. If you really want my personal opinion on it - Every candidate in the election is absolutely awful now that Bernie is out. Hillary represents everything wrong with establishment politics. Johnson is a Libertarian and hence supports insane policies in my mind. Greens are fiscally insane. Trump is just insane, flat out nuts. A narcissistic billionaire madman who managed to successfully trick most of a nation into think he's a populist, when in reality he'll just use to office to make the rich richer and gut life for the poor. But I refrain from talking about that and I focus on the articles as much as I can, because this is the sort of sheet that doesn't belong in a discussion in my mind.

Well for one, not tryna guilt you here. I just post stuff when I find it. The posts merge.

 

Look there are very clear rules for what would be a breach in the 1st amendment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

So no, if some idiot shot Hillary, Trump would not be liable under the law for it.

 

Trump was not outside he legal bounds, and there's already a lot of media BS about him being investigated by the FBI about this an all, it doesn't need more attention if it's just a fabrication

 

I'm saying the reaction and lending it credence is wrong simply because Hillary did pretty much the same thing in '08. If it wasn't a call for assassination then, it wasn't now. If it is now, then surely Hillary should be grilled on why she said that about Obama? If anyone is getting a double standard. It's Trump.

 

Now as for this being personal, I guess I owe you an apology then. In my eyes you do seem far more pro-Hillary than Trump (not saying that's wrong). And it irritates me for you to hide (again my opinion) behind 1/2 posts damning Hillary after the fact as front for objectivity and license to peddle what amounts to tabloid stories.

 

There's a lot of material you can attack Trump on, LIKE SSE. But this is getting pretty low, which is why I called out what I perceived as a bias trying to hide as objectivity.

 

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, just noticed the post now

[Aerion Brightflame]

He would still be to blame (I've never actually talked about him being charged over it, simply that he'd be to blame. There is a distinction there). People don't need rational reasons to go out and shoot others. Someone shot Reagan to try and impress a celebrity they had seen in a film  (In which a senator running for president is almost assassinated) after all. Trump wouldn't be liable to legal action yes, but that doesn't mean he's not to blame. Because there are crazy people out there who'd latch onto his words and do something stupid. I also think people did run with the story about Hilary calling for the hit in '08, so it's not exactly Trump specific.

 

Yes, that sort of person might do it anyway but there is still a simple point - A public figure like a presidential candidate should be very careful in his or her choice of words such as to never condone or imply violence in any form. Trumps comment, whilst obviously not directly saying go shooter her can definitely be read in that context. Obviously Hilary has been guilty of that at points (Her Gadaffi comments in particular) but that doesn't justify it for either candidate. 

 

And I refute the idea this is tabloid gossip - For the most part I post sheet that comes directly from his mouth (Hence a slim chance of it being outright bollocks). The exceptions are either things that either deserve serious consideration if true (Like the Kasich story), or are things that are easily verifiable. It's not exactly all high brow journalism either, but it's not tabloid gossip because it's based in truth for the most part.

 

If I was interested in discussing tabloid journalism, I'd be posting a new article every few minutes that's how much sheet is out there about Trump. But I don't.  

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/08/15/daily-202-can-trump-chairman-paul-manafort-survive-new-ukraine-revelations/57b0ec7ccd249a2fe363ba20/

 

WARNING: it's a very long page and goes beyond politics after a while

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/08/15/daily-202-can-trump-chairman-paul-manafort-survive-new-ukraine-revelations/57b0ec7ccd249a2fe363ba20/

 

WARNING: it's a very long page and goes beyond politics after a while

It might hurt Trump a bit, but I don't think it's damning. The Clinton Campaign has already painted Trump as being pro-Russian, so the fact that legally Manafort was slated to receive money years back doesn't account to much. 

 

It might be like the 2A thing, not legally wrong, but bad perception.

 

Now if they prove that Manafort got the money (nada atm) and during the time he worked for Trump (nada)...then it's GG

 

So yeah, the story has potential to blow up

 

As for DNC and Mook talking about "electronic watergate"

 

[cr47t]

It might hurt Trump a bit, but I don't think it's damning. The Clinton Campaign has already painted Trump as being pro-Russian, so the fact that legally Manafort was slated to receive money years back doesn't account to much. 

 

It might be like the 2A thing, not legally wrong, but bad perception.

 

Now if they prove that Manafort got the money (nada atm) and during the time he worked for Trump (nada)...then it's GG

 

So yeah, the story has potential to blow up

 

As for DNC and Mook talking about "electronic watergate"

 

 

As a Bernie fan I find that pic hilarious XD

 

Manafort could have gotten the money for all we know - and it still confuses me why Trump, who paints himself as an outsider, is letting an insider like Manafort run his campaign. I'd like to see what you have to say about that Winter, since I believe you are on Trump's side of the campaign (if I'm not mistaken.)

 

As for the 2A thing, I think we are going to have to disagree with who's having trouble percepting - I think the Trump people are having the perception wrong. He said it like Clinton already won so I would think it was a call for assasination.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

As a Bernie fan I find that pic hilarious XD

 

Manafort could have gotten the money for all we know - and it still confuses me why Trump, who paints himself as an outsider, is letting an insider like Manafort run his campaign. I'd like to see what you have to say about that Winter, since I believe you are on Trump's side of the campaign (if I'm not mistaken.)

 

As for the 2A thing, I think we are going to have to disagree with who's having trouble percepting - I think the Trump people are having the perception wrong. He said it like Clinton already won so I would think it was a call for assasination.

I'm probs not the best Trump supporter to ask on the matter, becuase I've been pro-Russian longer than I've been pro-Trump. It's music to my ears if a President Trump would have better relations with Russia, but I can see why it might irk people.

 

Now about the outsider thing, we have no proof Manafort got the money, and he didn't file it in Taxes IIRC. So if he did get it, he's in a lot of sheet. But Trump is a political outsider in that his campaign is largely small doner money. Even Manafort isn't really establishment in my eyes. As long as he keeps the Kochs and Ryan types a arms length away and continues to largely self fund, I'm OK with him calling himself an outsider

 

 

Counter Push. Manafort was trying to get Ukraine in the EU

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=manafort&exact_phrase=&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&include_external_sources=True&publication_type[]=6&publication_type[]=2&new_search=False&order_by=most_relevant#results

 

Edit: Trump wants acceptance to gay rights fo be a criteria for getting US citizenship...it's intriguing at the very least

 

 

 

Now, motive? Probs to keeps Muslims out

[cr47t]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0815/As-Earth-warms-Americans-more-polarized-than-ever-on-climate

 

Opinion on climate change and climate politics? (Is the latter even a thing? XD )