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

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I mean, whether you support him or not, considering him a man of the people is just delusion. If he wants to try to play that angle, that's cute, but it really isn't his selling point.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean, whether you support him or not, considering him a man of the people is just delusion. If he wants to try to play that angle, that's cute, but it really isn't his selling point.

elaborate please

 

The bushes are voting for HRC, it's pretty clear who's fighting for me and who's fighting for WS at this pt

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

 

Good funking riddens though, it'll be wonderful to destroy two globalist dynasties that took turn raping America this november

[Aerion Brightflame]

No he's definitely a populist in terms of his movement, he's just isn't doing for the sake of the people. He's a populist because he's captured the wave of bitter resentment people have to the current establishment and the current global sentiments in the same way Obama did in 2008. It's part of why he won the nomination despite having no prior political history or presenting anything resembling a plan at the time (On top of generally weak competition that kept splitting the vote). 

 

The issue is, there's very little hard evidence that he gives a f*** about the common person for any reason beyond his pockets and publicity. He has no voting history like Hillary, he doesn't really have a history of activism (One that he can rely on because the less questions asked about the Trump Foundation the better), and he's changed his mind as much as Hilary. He lacks tact, an understanding of foreign policy and finances on such a large scale, and the countries that extoll his virtues tend to be enemies of the US, not allies. But he gets away with that stuff - He gets away with saying things that would have sunk any other political campaign dozens of times. 

 

And thing is, the details of Trump as a person and as a campaign don't matter to a lot of people voting for him, the same as it didn't for Brexit (Loath as I am to bring it up). All he's done is say 'Things are shitty for you right now, trust me and I will make it better'. The racist statements and sentiments are usually more specific targetting of this specific message. People are dissatisfied with how things are, so someone coming along boldly declaring 'I'll make it better' works, because the people who are most dissatisfied are usually those who don't have the best understanding as to why they are in the situation they are in. 

 

So Trump is a populist in terms of the campaign he is running, I just doubt he actually intends to help people without helping himself first. You can dislike the man as much as you like, and dislike the things he stands for but he has caught a wave of popular support in the same way Obama did, and he has played the media like a fiddle. That is an impressive feat. 

 

The best you can hope for if you really hate Trump is that he wins but that the House closes down on him like it did on Obama because it means his base will get ripped out from under him exactly like Obama's was. On a personal example - Look at Winter, he is the perfect example of what happens when a politician promising 'magical things' can't achieve what he sets out to. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/sid-blumenthal-birthers-clinton-obama-228388#ixzz4KlfiRoN1

 

Lol Giggle

 On a personal example - Look at Winter, he is the perfect example of what happens when a politician promising 'magical things' can't achieve what he sets out to. 

Absolutely, if he doesn't deliver, he'll be thrown out just like Obama. Better to take a chance with success than to vote for certain failure

 

The thing about Trump, is he's understood our pain better than any other politician. Guess how much of America feels they benefited from Obamacare. 50? 60? The universal 100?

 

Nope, 18% 

 

We're hurting, and he's the only one who is willing to accept that instead of saying "everything is fine, 4 more years"

 

And HRC threatening war with Russia was really the last straw

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

 

A pretty fascinating read that y'all might want to put some stock in

[Aerion Brightflame]

You know how we like to talk about shaddy s*** the candidates have been doing: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw

 

TL:DR - Trump used his charitable foundation to pay settlements from lawsuits he or his organisations had lost. Some 250,000 of known money was used to do this. Now you'd think this isn't so bad given that if the charity is in his name most of the money probably comes from him right? Nope, Trump has not donated to his charity since 2009 as far as we known from tax returns (And made only small donations the years prior). Which means Trump is known to have paid upwards of $250,000 of legal fees with someone else's money. Which is a crime known as self dealing I believe. It may also class as tax avoidance in some manner. 

 

Additionally the article talks about some other known instances of Trump using his charity's money to oblige personal debts. The purchase of two 6 foot portraits of himself totalling about $30,000, and $5000 spent on advertising for his own hotels. It also details how Trump tried to cheat a man out of winning a million dollars in an event he was running. 

 

It is of course easy to be charitable with someone elses money, but it appears Trump apparently neglects being charitable with his own. 

 

It's a fairly minor crime I think (As in just a fine, no prison sentence) but it's still something illegal that speaks volumes about the character of the man. 

 

EDIT: And yes the Clinton foundation does shady s***, but not as brazenly self serving as this. The Clinton Foundation has also done good things, it has acted as a charity should, it has a very high rating as a charity. Trumps has not. 

 

EDIT 2: Hell you want better:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/

 

The reporter in question contacted some 250 charities asking if Trump had donated them money to verify Trump's vague statements about 'giving millions to charity' and look at the results. Just look at it. Look at some of the comments of some of the the 'Never' or even on some of the ones he did donate.

 

Donald Trump is not a man to whom philanthropy comes naturally. That says a lot. 

 

EDIT 3: And this is all proof. This isn't speculation, we have the checks, we have the reports from the charities, from the tax returns on the foundation, from the dates. It's near certain proof that Trump has in fact broken the law in regards to his charity. 

 

But does anyone care? Nope, it's just more speculation about the emails. Chasing something that might be evidence of something that has already been dismissed due to a poor case. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There's an active investigation going on by a liberal NY prosecutor with a bone to pick. If there is really anything fraudulent, they'll roast him on it.

 

The difference is HRC did her stuff after she became a public official; based on original findings, it looks scummy on Trump, but it's a far cry from Obstruction of Justice and federal racketeering 

 

HRC's stuff threatened national security, if you can prove that on Trump I think you can draw an equivalence point and say why isn't this getting more attention. This is about as damning as White Water was. I'll read more into it when I get back from lab.

 

 

:))

 

CO or NH will be the tipping points

[Dad]

Funny cuz when I said it was a national security problem, you disagreed with me. You flipped real quick.

 

I'm not about to entrust my future to a man who is willingly ignorant to the problems he had caused, and has failed to address the problems I face as a citizen.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Funny cuz when I said it was a national security problem, you disagreed with me. You flipped real quick.

 

I'm not about to entrust my future to a man who is willingly ignorant to the problems he had caused, and has failed to address the problems I face as a citizen.

Wait, I defended HRC against you? Really? Link. This is gold if legit

 

 

The Trump effect boys

[Dad]

Wait, I defended HRC against you? Really? Link. This is gold if legit

 

 

The Trump effect boys

Skype. I'm not at a pc. Won't be for a few days.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Do you not remember the period back when the email scandal and the electoral fraud was happening to Sanders and you would just ignore it, or go 'Well Sander's looks like he's doing X fishy thing'. 

 

You only seem to care about Hillary's problems now she's against Trump. You were happy to ignore or dismiss them before when it was against Sanders. Whilst I can't see inside your mind, it does look like you only give a funk about a politicians flaws they happen to stand in opposition to Trump. 

 

Even if Trump doesn't get convicted of this crime (Need I remind you that just because a charge may not be brought against him it does not make him innocent. Hillary has proved that), it should still undermine the 'man of the people' idea some believe. A man of the people would have tried to help the people before out of the goodness of his heart. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The Nevada Scandal was the only time I can recall that happening....like me taking Clinton Side over Bernie

 

But if it's an apology you want, I can definitely fess that up, I bought into the media spin a little to easily and blamed him for what a few of his followers were doing (or in Nevada's case not doing)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602588/

 

So this is what I've been getting at, it's not a simple matter of "Oh, Mexico will never write the US a pay check"

 

We have numerous ways to squeeze money from them, be it trade or immigration

 

 

He went further to criticize how as a secular Muslim, that Islamists were a real danger. 

 

If more men were like this man, Islam would be able to make the transition to the 21st century like the other religions have

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yes, but forcing Mexico to pay for a wall that does absolutely nothing to further there interests or economy through threats or force like that is extortion. Which isn't something you exactly want to be doing to a nation that by alright should be your ally because it shares a land border with you. It's not been a matter of 'Oh can we get the money or can't we?' it's a matter of it being wrong to force a nation that is worse off than you economically and has it's own array of massive issues to build a barbaric ineffective solution to a problem whose effects could be neutralised in other manners.  

 

If illegals are undercutting wages and jobs, it's simple you give small buisnesses (Or even large ones) financial incentive to hire American. If American's aren't applying to the kinds of jobs that illegals do (Which wouldn't shock me) then you'd have an issue even with Trump's plans to deport them.  

 

And no sheet Sisi would speak in favour of Trump - His Egypt is closer to the Russians than the US. And generally countries that have interests in seeing the US decline seem to be speaking in favour of Trump, and against Hillary. Do you not think there's a funny pattern there? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, but forcing Mexico to pay for a wall that does absolutely nothing to further there interests or economy through threats or force like that is extortion. Which isn't something you exactly want to be doing to a nation that by alright should be your ally because it shares a land border with you. It's not been a matter of 'Oh can we get the money or can't we?' it's a matter of it being wrong to force a nation that is worse off than you economically and has it's own array of massive issues to build a barbaric ineffective solution to a problem whose effects could be neutralised in other manners.  

 

If illegals are undercutting wages and jobs, it's simple you give small buisnesses (Or even large ones) financial incentive to hire American. If American's aren't applying to the kinds of jobs that illegals do (Which wouldn't shock me) then you'd have an issue even with Trump's plans to deport them.  

 

And no sheet Sisi would speak in favour of Trump - His Egypt is closer to the Russians than the US. And generally countries that have interests in seeing the US decline seem to be speaking in favour of Trump, and against Hillary. Do you not think there's a funny pattern there? 

Our ally you say, yet it's been document that the Mexican government aids people infiltrate the us by point out how to cross the border illegally. You do realize Meixco built a wall right? Why should they be able to defend their borders, but us not?

 

And that second paragraph isn't economically sound. You want to funnel tax payer money (which I assume is where you're gonna get your subsidies from) to bankroll firms to not hire people who have no right being here? There are better ways to get people to self-deport

 

It might also be cause Clinton is all cozy with the Muslim brotherhood? US prominence is not tied to countering Russia, that's what Europe wants us to think so they can keep embezzling us for protection. If anything a US-Russian alliance would be in our best interest as it keep a check on the biggest threat the world faces, Chinese Expansionism 

 

https://www.rt.com/news/360313-ap-leakes-syria-ceasefire-doc/

 

Edit: If anything the US gov is the one dicking around with sheet, as seen above. I'd much rather have a president who would just work with assad to put down Daesh instead of a president that plans to go to war with Russia and bomb syrians while Daesh uses mustard gas on US soldiers

[Aerion Brightflame]

Being allies doesn't mean you have to act entirely nice to each other. It means you work towards long term goals for the future (I'm not actually sure if the US and Mexico are allies. I imagine you would be because who else does Mexico have?) But it does mean you don't treat them like funking dirt, which making them pay for a wall they don't want to pay for essentially is. And it's not about defending borders, it doesn't actually matter if Mexico have a wall of there own, because the issue is you are talking about extortion of a nation. You shouldn't be doing that as a very public talking point unless you really believe America is superior to everyone else. Which has no factual backing of any kind. 

 

Given that companies and businesses that use illegals are doing so the pay the minimum possible on employees and thus minimise costs you have to give them financial incentive to offset those costs. Because they won't do it out of decency. It's not about getting them to self deport, it's about getting them to give American's jobs which is the biggest argument against illegals - That they undermine the US work force and cost the US money. You make an investment in the form of subsidies to get companies to hire Americans which in turn gives more of them money to help grow the economy. At the very least, it might help more of them out of the poverty line (And it'll be low skill jobs, which is just the sort of thing the work force wants) which frees up money from the social schemes they'd have to rely on whilst in poverty. 

 

It's not about getting them to self-deport, I'm offering a practical solution to part of the problem that doesn't involve the US being colossal dicks to Mexico. The world is somewhat tired of the US being colossal dicks to any nation that doesn't give them what they want, so it's really a solution that benefits all of us in the long run. 

 

But it's not just Russia. It's North Korea, and I think China, and I think Iran and even IS I think have all made comments praising Trump. When literally all of your geographical enemies are going 'Yeah we want this guy, this guy will be a good leader' surely you should think that maybe they want him because they think he'll be crap and that he will help them get more influence? That it might be a possibility? Maybe? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Being allies doesn't mean you have to act entirely nice to each other. It means you work towards long term goals for the future (I'm not actually sure if the US and Mexico are allies. I imagine you would be because who else does Mexico have?) But it does mean you don't treat them like funking dirt, which making them pay for a wall they don't want to pay for essentially is. And it's not about defending borders, it doesn't actually matter if Mexico have a wall of there own, because the issue is you are talking about extortion of a nation. You shouldn't be doing that as a very public talking point unless you really believe America is superior to everyone else. Which has no factual backing of any kind. 

 

Given that companies and businesses that use illegals are doing so the pay the minimum possible on employees and thus minimise costs you have to give them financial incentive to offset those costs. Because they won't do it out of decency. It's not about getting them to self deport, it's about getting them to give American's jobs which is the biggest argument against illegals - That they undermine the US work force and cost the US money. You make an investment in the form of subsidies to get companies to hire Americans which in turn gives more of them money to help grow the economy. At the very least, it might help more of them out of the poverty line (And it'll be low skill jobs, which is just the sort of thing the work force wants) which frees up money from the social schemes they'd have to rely on whilst in poverty. 

 

It's not about getting them to self-deport, I'm offering a practical solution to part of the problem that doesn't involve the US being colossal dicks to Mexico. The world is somewhat tired of the US being colossal dicks to any nation that doesn't give them what they want, so it's really a solution that benefits all of us in the long run. 

 

But it's not just Russia. It's North Korea, and I think China, and I think Iran and even IS I think have all made comments praising Trump. When literally all of your geographical enemies are going 'Yeah we want this guy, this guy will be a good leader' surely you should think that maybe they want him because they think he'll be crap and that he will help them get more influence? That it might be a possibility? Maybe? 

They are actively undermining our nation's sovereignty and economy. They're devaluing their currency to boost the Mexican economy at the expense of the US one. That's not our freind. They're doing everything they can do to kill the US's chance of being self reliant. They profited off NAFTA while we got raped. It's about time that Mexico realizes they can't funk us blind and get away it it.

 

The proper way to deal with Illegal immigration is to require E-verify. They won't be be able to get welfare or pay. They won't have any motive to stay or come.  

 

North Korea also bashed Trump repeatedly, ISIS didn't praise Trump lol, they did use both Clinton and Trump in their propos

 

China is a mixed bag, they praise his business acumen, but they bash him for blaming china. Russia is the only country that actually likes Trump though 

 

Iran wants HRC actually 

 

Russia is only our enemy because the last 3 admins are incompetent 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Wouldn't you then just be doing the same thing to them? Weakening there economy to boost your own, and reduce the amount of freedom Mexico has over it's border by the same means? Is the solution to them trying to 'undermine' you really to do the same back? Not offer to help them with some of the domestic issues they have in exchange for greater border control on the Mexican side? Since if you made the Mexican economy stronger you'd probably see less illegals. 

 

They will have every incentive to come. They get paid in cash, and the cash is worth a fortune compared to what there family has at home. They will go to have money to provide for there families at home, like a lot of migrants do in Europe. The dollar is worth like 20 peso's, so it is probably a massive uptake on wagers even when you are paying them below minimum wage. 

 

Are you forgetting the Cold War? That really big period of 44 years of your countries being in massive opposition to each other that only ended in the 90's when the Soviet union collpased? You've been enemies for a really, really long time. Clinton, Bush and Obama aren't really to blame for that given that political lines and treaties had been drawn decades in the past that firmly placed the US against Russia. 

 

Unless your argument is that the administrations ailed because they didn't attempt ally with Russia? Which is still inaccurate because again there are a vast amount of political treaties and ties in place that mean you and Russia are opposed to each other. They didn't fail, because it's a task they physically can't have accomplished without tanking all foreign relations. I don't think you even get anything from them because they can't exactly make your economy stronger compared to trade from Europe  - Russia has 4 exports essentially, Oil, Vodka, Fur and Porn. You can get the former from the middle east (Or Scotland eventually) and the latter from the Swedes, and you have the wildlife for furs. There economy is only in a not terrible state because Putin uses money from Oil Barons to compensate for the lack of exports and trade. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

1)

#LANDSLIDE

 

2) Cruz Endorsement

 

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

 

 

3)

 

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/

 

voter fraud in the state most likely to break HRC's bluewall...hmmmm

[Dad]

You know what else is fraudulent? Using campaign money to find your broken businesses, then lying about it.

 

And speaking of voter fraud, when are we gonna bring up the right wing efforts to keep young people from voting? You change a bunch of bullshit regulations, then when we ask about voter count out same day registration, you suddenly don't know. From New York, to Colorado, to California.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You know what else is fraudulent? Using campaign money to find your broken businesses, then lying about it.

 

And speaking of voter fraud, when are we gonna bring up the right wing efforts to keep young people from voting? You change a bunch of bullshit regulations, then when we ask about voter count out same day registration, you suddenly don't know. From New York, to Colorado, to California.

You know what else is fraudulent, coordinating with your super-pac.

 

Right wing didn't do that buddy, DNC changed polling stations and made sanders voters not able to vote

 

All the Right Wing is doing is trying to push for voter id, so sheet like this Colorado incident don't happen

 

What the 8 million the WaPo is jerking about? He put in over 50 million of his own cash so I don't see the problem

 

Literally every politician does it to a degree

[Dad]

Oh so that makes it okay? Welp, guys we should give Clinton the all clear, Cuz every politician does it to some degree.

 

And taking out a loan from your business to float it back in is nit only stupid, is downright poor business ownership. Trump shouldn't have to borrow money if he's so successful. But instead he's digging so far into debt, Wesley Snipes looks like a hero. How you gonna manage trillions when you can't manage a campaign?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh so that makes it okay? Welp, guys we should give Clinton the all clear, Cuz every politician does it to some degree.

 

And taking out a loan from your business to float it back in is nit only stupid, is downright poor business ownership. Trump shouldn't have to borrow money if he's so successful. But instead he's digging so far into debt, Wesley Snipes looks like a hero. How you gonna manage trillions when you can't manage a campaign?

Well atleast you've moved the goalpost.

 

No, clinton can get a pass on moving funds from her donations to the Clinton Foundation, sure. We've been giving her a pass on that if you didn't nice. 

 

Stealing relief money from Haiti? Not so much. Selling Uranium to Russia? Nope. Breaking FEC rules with her super pac? Again nope.

 

She's dirty like no one else

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/

 

This is a pretty good read that gives you a glimpse into the mind of Trump supporters

[Aerion Brightflame]

I think even if Trump could afford to pay for whatever without his campaign money he would still use his campaign money because the man has a history of generally being a tight bastard. Between using the charity he no longer donates to (That doesn't actually do anything charitable) to pay off legal settlements and random extravagances like two giant photo's of himself and a celebrity dinner. We've got multiple cases of him trying to short contractors of pre-agreed payments (That end up with him ending up in court usually). We have him hiring incredibly shitty lawyers for the sake of them being cheap. We have a very thorough list showing that he has not exactly donated a lot of money to charitable causes either (Despite claiming to have donated millions)

 

He is not an especially generous man if we are being kind. It shouldn't be a shock that he'd reimburse himself with his own campaign money. It's kinda terrifying because governments don't run for profit for kinda obvious reasons. Most governments in history have been in debt in fact, dating back to the medieval period. 

 

And that's just ignoring the fact he's lied about basically every issue known to man. People call Hilary dishonest which is entirely fair, but Trump somehow manages to avoid the same moniker by lying and bullshitting so often there can't be any focus on it. It's both impressive and really sad. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think even if Trump could afford to pay for whatever without his campaign money he would still use his campaign money because the man has a history of generally being a tight bastard. Between using the charity he no longer donates to (That doesn't actually do anything charitable) to pay off legal settlements and random extravagances like two giant photo's of himself and a celebrity dinner. We've got multiple cases of him trying to short contractors of pre-agreed payments (That end up with him ending up in court usually). We have him hiring incredibly shitty lawyers for the sake of them being cheap. We have a very thorough list showing that he has not exactly donated a lot of money to charitable causes either (Despite claiming to have donated millions)

 

He is not an especially generous man if we are being kind. It shouldn't be a shock that he'd reimburse himself with his own campaign money. It's kinda terrifying because governments don't run for profit for kinda obvious reasons. Most governments in history have been in debt in fact, dating back to the medieval period. 

 

And that's just ignoring the fact he's lied about basically every issue known to man. People call Hilary dishonest which is entirely fair, but Trump somehow manages to avoid the same moniker by lying and bullshitting so often there can't be any focus on it. It's both impressive and really sad. 

He's hardly lied, playing the numbers to his advantage sure, but there's always an underlying truth in what he says.

 

Honestly, read the Atlantic piece I linked above, that's what people like me see in him when we've had the honor of meeting him in person. He's not at all a money grubbing jabroni like you portray him to be. 

 

This is the guy who's stepped in to defend minorities many times in his life with no real incentive to protect his wealth. But the media will never talk about that

[Aerion Brightflame]

Except having 'an underlying truth' is not the same as telling the truth is it. If he is manipulating the numbers, or making them up say to make what he's saying seem more convincing (As he does with say the 'real' poverty number because he's never to my knowledge elaborated on what justifies his inflated number) then it's as bad as flat out making it up. Because either the data supports you, or it doesn't. Misuse of data is part of why there's this growing culture against 'experts' which is just infuriating. 

 

It really doesn't matter if deep down there's some nugget of truth in what he's saying - He's supposedly the transparent candidate here (In spite of you know, the tax returns), and yet he isn't willing to just tell the truth without manipulation or misrepresentation of what it means? That's not being transparent now is it? Like that article even talks about it - He takes a statistic on black unemployment that doesn't actually show the point he is trying to make (By taking a ratio that includes a portion of the population that ideally wouldn't be working in the first place due to being in full time education) but success in inflating an issue to make his talking point seem better. That is not transparency. 

 

I read the article. But you see meeting him in person doesn't change his actions now does it? It doesn't change his history of being cheap. It is entirely possible that the guy you see at the rally is not the same aspect of him as that that runs his business because the one that goes to rally's is entirely trying to get people to like him. Like why the funk are you trying to gather 'what the man is really like' at an event entirely designed to get people to like him? It's like saying 'I want to see what education is like in X city' and then only going to see the open days of the very best schools. Not popping into a bottom tier sheet-house unannounced. 

 

Like seriously - Do you think that anyone in politics in any form would come to a rally and hiss and spit on the audience for being people they think are beneath them? No, they will be open, they will be friendly. Because that's the funking point. It shows almost nothing about there personality because it's trying to get people to like them. Do you not understand that idea? 

 

What defence?