Election 2016: Trump vs. Clinton

[boutons_deux]

For his next trick, Trump questions Clinton’s religious faith

Recently, most of Donald Trump’s offensive rants have focus on race and ethnicity, but not religion. Any chance he can pick the slack and start making faith-based insults, too?

As it turns out, yes, he can.

Donald Trump questioned Hillary Clinton’s commitment to her Christian faith on Tuesday, saying that little is known about her spiritual life even though she’s been in the public eye for decades.

Speaking to a group of top social conservative evangelical Christian leaders at a gathering in New York City, Trump said, “we don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion.”

“Now, she’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s no – there’s nothing out there,” Trump said.

“There’s like nothing out there. It’s going to be an extension of Obama but it’s going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don’t, and it’s going to be worse.”

As The Hill’s report noted, the behind-closed-doors meeting was not open to the public or to journalists, but one faith leader recorded Trump’s comments and posted them online.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[RandomGuy]

Donald Trump's campaign started the month with a paltry $1.3 million in cash — a mere fraction of Hillary Clinton's $42.5 million war chest — putting the GOP frontrunner at a sharp disadvantage heading into the general election against Clinton's money machine.

On the same day that Trump fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, amid a steady stream of reports of campaign infighting and disorganization, the latest batch of Federal Election Commission filings show that the real estate mogul has a long way to go to establish a financial operation that can compete at the national level.

And it's not just money — the filings revealed a campaign staff of less than 70, a number was dwarfed by Clinton's nearly 700 paid employees, and few of the campaign's expenses suggested work had begun to build out a more robust operation. All together, it's the most lopsided fundraising start to a presidential election in the modern campaign finance era.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4CCLUPm3e

Trump's campaign cycles $6 million into Trump companies

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Donald Trump's campaign likes to keep it in the family.

When Trump flies, he uses his airplane. When he campaigns, he often chooses his properties or his own Trump Tower in New York City, which serves as headquarters. His campaign even buys Trump bottled water and Trump wine.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been on the campaign trail for a year now, and federal finance reports detail a campaign unafraid to co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way — even as he is making appeals for donations.

Through the end of May, Trump's campaign had plunged at least $6.2 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. That's about 10 percent of his total campaign expenditures.
Wealthy political candidates in the past have walled off their business from their campaigns, but Trump embraces his companies. Public do ents indicate his revenue has risen along with his presidential aspirations.


Trump's campaign didn't respond to detailed questions about the intermingling of his businesses and campaign.

Trump isn't the first high-profile politician to run a campaign while managing large corporate assets. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and presidential contender Steve Forbes both ran companies bearing their name.

Both took great care to carefully separate their businesses and their campaigns, their former aides said, citing the complex maze of campaign finance regulations about using corporate resources. For instance, federal rules require a company to charge their campaigns fair-market value.

Trump also lent his campaign more than $46 million over the past year — money he has largely not recouped, according to FEC reports.

The campaign has paid about $520,000 to Trump Tower Commercial LLC and the Trump Corporation for rent and utilities. The campaign also paid $423,000 to Trump's private Mar-a-Lago Club in south Florida for rent and catering and an additional $135,000 in rent and utilities to Trump Restaurants LLC.

The campaign paid out $26,000 in January to rent out a facility at Trump National Doral, his golf course in Miami. He'd held an event in the gold-accented ballroom there in late October. The campaign paid almost $11,000 to Trump's hotel in Chicago.

Even $4.7 million the campaign has spent on hats and T-shirts has a tie to Trump. The provider, Ace Specialties, is owned by a board member of son Eric Trump's charitable foundation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Trump's campaign cycles $6 million into Trump companies

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Donald Trump's campaign likes to keep it in the family.

When Trump flies, he uses his airplane. When he campaigns, he often chooses his properties or his own Trump Tower in New York City, which serves as headquarters. His campaign even buys Trump bottled water and Trump wine.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been on the campaign trail for a year now, and federal finance reports detail a campaign unafraid to co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way — even as he is making appeals for donations.

Through the end of May, Trump's campaign had plunged at least $6.2 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. That's about 10 percent of his total campaign expenditures.
Wealthy political candidates in the past have walled off their business from their campaigns, but Trump embraces his companies. Public do ents indicate his revenue has risen along with his presidential aspirations.


Trump's campaign didn't respond to detailed questions about the intermingling of his businesses and campaign.

Trump isn't the first high-profile politician to run a campaign while managing large corporate assets. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and presidential contender Steve Forbes both ran companies bearing their name.

Both took great care to carefully separate their businesses and their campaigns, their former aides said, citing the complex maze of campaign finance regulations about using corporate resources. For instance, federal rules require a company to charge their campaigns fair-market value.

Trump also lent his campaign more than $46 million over the past year — money he has largely not recouped, according to FEC reports.

The campaign has paid about $520,000 to Trump Tower Commercial LLC and the Trump Corporation for rent and utilities. The campaign also paid $423,000 to Trump's private Mar-a-Lago Club in south Florida for rent and catering and an additional $135,000 in rent and utilities to Trump Restaurants LLC.

The campaign paid out $26,000 in January to rent out a facility at Trump National Doral, his golf course in Miami. He'd held an event in the gold-accented ballroom there in late October. The campaign paid almost $11,000 to Trump's hotel in Chicago.

Even $4.7 million the campaign has spent on hats and T-shirts has a tie to Trump. The provider, Ace Specialties, is owned by a board member of son Eric Trump's charitable foundation.

Not difficult to see where this dynamic is going. Imagine him as president and all the pork he would send his way. Try to do outdo Cheney and the Bush family with regards to government contracts.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's chicken feed compared to Hillary's money whoring.

[Reck]

That's chicken feed compared to Hillary's money whoring.

Is there anything that Trump supporters won't excuse? Saint Trump over here.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is there anything that Trump supporters won't excuse? Saint Trump over here.

Is there anything Hillary supporters won't excuse?

Little hypocrisy there, Reck.

I'm not even a Trump supporter but that nit picking is tiny compared to Hillary's blatant money whoring.

[Reck]

Is there anything Hillary supporters won't excuse?

Little hypocrisy there, Reck.

I'm not even a Trump supporter but that nit picking is tiny compared to Hillary's blatant money whoring.

I've admitted as much that Hillary has tons of baggage and as far as candidates go she is a weak one, but not against Trump.

Trump supporters think his doesn't stink. They dont even think much of his bankruptcies he caused. Defend his bigotry and take think he actually know what he's doing when everything points the other way.

There is sticking up for your candidate and suspending disbelief because the facts dont support you at all.

[Th'Pusher]

Is there anything Hillary supporters won't excuse?

Little hypocrisy there, Reck.

I'm not even a Trump supporter but that nit picking is tiny compared to Hillary's blatant money whoring.

just admit you're going to be giddy as pulling that all R lever with Trump atop the ticket.

Because of the Supreme Court vacancy of course

[CosmicCowboy]

just admit you're going to be giddy as pulling that all R lever with Trump atop the ticket.

Because of the Supreme Court vacancy of course

I think a vote for Trump will be pointless.

Sadly, Hillary is going to win in a landslide.

I will probably throw my vote away on Gary Johnson.

[RandomGuy]

Is there anything Hillary supporters won't excuse?

Little hypocrisy there, Reck.

I'm not even a Trump supporter but that nit picking is tiny compared to Hillary's blatant money whoring.

Okay, "blatant money whoring" can you fill that out please?

I hear it, but still only have the vaguest idea as to what it refers to. Just don't point me to overly conservative websites, they tend to have nasty, nasty computer viruses.

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay, "blatant money whoring" can you fill that out please?

I hear it, but still only have the vaguest idea as to what it refers to. Just don't point me to overly conservative websites, they tend to have nasty, nasty computer viruses.

Not even going to the Clinton Foundation and just talking about personal enrichment, look at Bills speech value increasing geometrically while Hillary was Secretary of State, Look at Hillary's Wall street speeches for millions while she was the presumptive next democratic nominee for President, etc. and her absolute refusal to release transcripts.

You are pretty astute on politics. I shouldn't need to give you actual links as these have been discussed ad nauseum in all media, including Bernies speeches.

[pgardn]

Not even going to the Clinton Foundation and just talking about personal enrichment, look at Bills speech value increasing geometrically while Hillary was Secretary of State, Look at Hillary's Wall street speeches for millions while she was the presumptive next democratic nominee for President, etc. and her absolute refusal to release transcripts.

You are pretty astute on politics. I shouldn't need to give you actual links as these have been discussed ad nauseum in all media, including Bernies speeches.

She is doing a very Republican thing. Donald is not beholden to any group, he will act purely from his own instincts, which we know is a HUGE problem. Basically because he is a lunatic. The choice was made easy by Republicans. Not an ideal situation but here we are.

[z0sa]

Trump's campaign cycles $6 million into Trump companies

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Donald Trump's campaign likes to keep it in the family.

When Trump flies, he uses his airplane. When he campaigns, he often chooses his properties or his own Trump Tower in New York City, which serves as headquarters. His campaign even buys Trump bottled water and Trump wine.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been on the campaign trail for a year now, and federal finance reports detail a campaign unafraid to co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way — even as he is making appeals for donations.

Through the end of May, Trump's campaign had plunged at least $6.2 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. That's about 10 percent of his total campaign expenditures.
Wealthy political candidates in the past have walled off their business from their campaigns, but Trump embraces his companies. Public do ents indicate his revenue has risen along with his presidential aspirations.


Trump's campaign didn't respond to detailed questions about the intermingling of his businesses and campaign.

Trump isn't the first high-profile politician to run a campaign while managing large corporate assets. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and presidential contender Steve Forbes both ran companies bearing their name.

Both took great care to carefully separate their businesses and their campaigns, their former aides said, citing the complex maze of campaign finance regulations about using corporate resources. For instance, federal rules require a company to charge their campaigns fair-market value.

Trump also lent his campaign more than $46 million over the past year — money he has largely not recouped, according to FEC reports.

The campaign has paid about $520,000 to Trump Tower Commercial LLC and the Trump Corporation for rent and utilities. The campaign also paid $423,000 to Trump's private Mar-a-Lago Club in south Florida for rent and catering and an additional $135,000 in rent and utilities to Trump Restaurants LLC.

The campaign paid out $26,000 in January to rent out a facility at Trump National Doral, his golf course in Miami. He'd held an event in the gold-accented ballroom there in late October. The campaign paid almost $11,000 to Trump's hotel in Chicago.

Even $4.7 million the campaign has spent on hats and T-shirts has a tie to Trump. The provider, Ace Specialties, is owned by a board member of son Eric Trump's charitable foundation.

He has been mostly self funded. When you're self funded, it's hard to bat an eye. That's why his "warchest" is only a tiny fraction of Hillary's, though. People aren't really going to donate to him because that's sort of his main appeal - being rich enough to stay outside of the political "game." At least, that's what his supporters believe.

[RandomGuy]

Not even going to the Clinton Foundation and just talking about personal enrichment, look at Bills speech value increasing geometrically while Hillary was Secretary of State, Look at Hillary's Wall street speeches for millions while she was the presumptive next democratic nominee for President, etc. and her absolute refusal to release transcripts.

You are pretty astute on politics. I shouldn't need to give you actual links as these have been discussed ad nauseum in all media, including Bernies speeches.

I fail to see how a charitable foundation privately enriches the Clintons. Conservatives have been trying to (unfairly it would seem) ding that with little effect, which causes me to be highly skeptical of most criticisms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/whe...tion-money-go/

Another thing I just don't understand is what the ing deal is about "the speeches".

Are we going to give a about how the free market prices something?

While I haven't looked into the pricing, or anything, the people making the case about that providing some undue influence, have to be better about proving out an accusation then "it looks fishy to me" from someone with a direct motivation to lie about what it "looks like".

If there was something specific, that would out itself pretty quickly.

Are we going to hold every single candidate 100% responsible to release transcripts of all their speeches given to private groups? Are/did you going to insist on that for Mitt Romney? If not, then why not?

There is a big reason why I tend to give this short shrift, especially since most of it comes from political enemies. That right there makes me want a good deal more evidence, and more specific evidence than I might otherwise, and I haven't gotten anything, which causes my skept-o-meter to edge into the red.

[RandomGuy]

He has been mostly self funded. When you're self funded, it's hard to bat an eye. That's why his "warchest" is only a tiny fraction of Hillary's, though. People aren't really going to donate to him because that's sort of his main appeal - being rich enough to stay outside of the political "game." At least, that's what his supporters believe.

'He doesn't have the cash'—Mark Cuban calls out Trump

In the latest installment of "billionaire Mark Cuban is unimpressed by Donald Trump," the entrepreneur let loose on Twitter on Tuesday morning questioning the presumptive GOP nominee's cash reserves.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/he-do...out-trump.html

Mark Cuban ✔ @mcuban
If @realDonaldTrump were fractionally as rich as he says he is,he would write a$200mm check to propel his campaign. He doesn't have the cash

That is the ultimate bombs that I believe is hidden in Trumps tax returns.

He is nowhere near as rich as he wants everybody to believe. That his campaign is starving is an interesting bit of data to ponder.

[spurraider21]

Are we going to give a about how the free market prices something?

Ask pharmabro

[RandomGuy]

Ask pharmabro

True that.

But speeches aren't life-saving medicines.

[CosmicCowboy]

I told you RG, I gave the Clinton Foundation a pass for now. I will be interested to see what the FBI comes up with if it's allowed to be public.

The 153 million in "speech fees" paid by special interests (mostly banks and foreign countries) to Bill and Hillary since 2001 was personal income in their pocket.

You may be blind to it but it certainly stinks of buying influence, especially considering their past track record (Mark Rich, etc.)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I told you RG, I gave the Clinton Foundation a pass for now. I will be interested to see what the FBI comes up with if it's allowed to be public.

The 153 million in "speech fees" paid by special interests (mostly banks and foreign countries) to Bill and Hillary since 2001 was personal income in their pocket.

You may be blind to it but it certainly stinks of buying influence, especially considering their past track record (Mark Rich, etc.)

Paying for access is how our political system works. I agree it's ed up but I'm not going to act surprised and newly outraged by it. I do need ot start a thread about that hack dump of the Clinton Foundation though. Cannot believe its gotten a pass.

[RandomGuy]

I told you RG, I gave the Clinton Foundation a pass for now. I will be interested to see what the FBI comes up with if it's allowed to be public.

The 153 million in "speech fees" paid by special interests (mostly banks and foreign countries) to Bill and Hillary since 2001 was personal income in their pocket.

You may be blind to it but it certainly stinks of buying influence, especially considering their past track record (Mark Rich, etc.)

I am not blind to it.

Your problem in hanging your hat on it, is that all ex-presidents give speeches, and our entire political system is awash in money, and apparent conflicts of interest.

Why are you holding the Clintons accountable to a higher standard than say, the Bushes? or Reagan?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/18/tru...8speeches.html

I would note Trump's fees are right up there.

If your problem is influence... how much influence could $1.5M buy?

It all looks bad, to me.

As much as it may be influence peddling, I would ask for any concrete associations. If it is a bribe as the moron TheSannityAnnex implies, but is too lazy/dishonest to bother trying to prove, then the link should be clear.

If there isn't some very specific quid pro quo, all you have is the usual partisan bull , and the kind of smear that the right excels at, i.e. doorbell ringing, then running away.

To be clear:

I am sure there is generally some expectation of access on the part of some, or even most of the people giving to the Clinton foundation. That seems to be the way things work for both Democrats and Republicans. I would prefer that money would have less of an influence, but getting rid of it would almost certainly have some negative unintended consequences, e.g. do we then tell businesses with billions at stake, NOT to say/do anything to protect their interests?

What I think a lot of people are missing is that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. That is an important aspect that the right-wing media glosses over in their rush to score propaganda victories at the expense of a more accurate picture.

The big problem I have, and why I give this all a lot of short shrift is that the charges are so amorphous.

If it is bad in some specific way, that is a whole other matter.

If, for example, funds were given, and some contract was steered to/from someone, and the harm was measurable, that would be meaningful.

This is the kind of stuff I don't see much of, when I go looking for information about this. Which lead me to think it is just a lot of partisan bull .

IF there was something really provably illegal, that would out pretty quickly. At best what is implied is something that can be said to be unethical, but ultimately, without direct proof of intent or state of mind, can't be proven to any definitive degree.

One generally should look to political enemies to be the first to bring forth negative things you need to fully judge someone. I am cool with that happening, and it is, to me, a good part of the political process.

What I don't do, though, is put too much stock in the strength of thouse issues, until there is a pretty good amount of evidence, because so much of what goes on is pure partisan bull .

The right-wing propaganda machine has gotten good at implying and lying about all sorts of things that, when given a little light of day, turn out to be little more than pablum for the faithful.

That pablum seems to sastify a lot of people on the right who don't quite have good critical thinking skills. This lack of critical thinking skills plays out day in, day out here. Donning-Kruger over, and over.

People like tlong or TSA are *sure* they have *the* truth. Until you start asking questions about specifics and underlying data/assumptions.

/rant

[tlongII]

If it looks like a duck...

[RandomGuy]

If it looks like a duck...

... you won't answer an honest question about it. :p

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Donald Trump said last week he hasn’t really started campaigning in the general election. It shows in his poll numbers.

After weeks of blistering news coverage, the latest round of national and battleground-state polling underscores the hole in which Trump now finds himself: trailing Hillary Clinton by a significant margin with fewer than 100 days remaining until early voting begins in the key swing states of Ohio and Iowa.

Two new, major national polls released Sunday morning — surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal — differ to some degree, but both are consistent with the broader trend: Clinton holds a reliable lead over Trump, an advantage that occasionally swells to double digits.

Trump now trails Clinton by 6.3 points in the latest RealClearPolitics polling average, and by 6.6 points in the HuffPost Pollster model. In the key states in the Electoral College, POLITICO’s Battleground States polling average shows Clinton ahead by 4.3 points. And perhaps even more important, Trump is lagging behind on a number of other key indicators, including candidate favorability.

At this point four years ago, Mitt Romney was essentially tied with President Barack Obama, trailing by just four-tenths of a percentage point. With the exception of 1988, no candidate in modern presidential history who trailed by this much in June has come back to win.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4Cl7ixUBA

[boutons_deux]

FiveThirtyEight: Site's Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Will Win General Election Over Donald Trump

The editor-in-chief of the statistical analysis website said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday that Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning compared to 20 percent for Trump.

https://www.facebook.com/topic/FiveT...61960247584092

pundits, polls have been way off in the past few elections, but anyway ...

even 60% hillary vs 40% trump as winner is good enough.

Repug convention will be a hilarious zoo as the dysfunctional-almost-to-defunct Repug party embarrasses itself on national teevee.

And if Trash gets stopped, maybe some of his Trash Tramps will shoot up the place, riots. Chicago 1968 all over again. Very entertaining.

[HarlemHeat37]

What kind of terrible nickname is "Trash"?