Too soon?

[clambake]

makes her look honest?

you don't smell the rat?

[RandomGuy]

makes her look honest?

you don't smell the rat?

Sure, some of it reeks of quid pro quo.

Now answer me this:

Who does Donald trump owe money to, and how much? (think heavy leverage on real estate, and billions net worth)

[RandomGuy]

For those of you who aren't accounting nerds:

Assets-liabilities= equity


If your equity is in the billions, and you have leverage, your assets have to be greater than your equity, and your debt is almost certainly on the same scale.

Trump has outlined his business model, i.e. to develop using others' money.

So, it is almost certain that his direct debt has a lot of zeros. Who does he owe it to?

Now, imagine a president with billions of dollars of direct debt owed to say... Deutsche Bank, who is violating some pretty serious US laws. Is that a serious enough conflict of interest for you?

[RandomGuy]

Or, for that matter, a president being sued directly for fraud. Is this person you want picking the attorney general?

[clambake]

when is the book release?

[CosmicCowboy]

Or, for that matter, a president being sued directly for fraud. Is this person you want picking the attorney general?

It probably won't be a Mexican

[RandomGuy]

It probably won't be a Mexican

[101A]

Sure, some of it reeks of quid pro quo.

Now answer me this:

Who does Donald trump owe money to, and how much? (think heavy leverage on real estate, and billions net worth)

Jesus Christ, are you not paying attention to the $$$$ being raised by the Democrat/Clinton machine, and the $$$$ raked in by the Clinton Foundation, and the $$$$ "earned" by the Clintons for giving speaches, and making appearances? How many BILLIONS does that amount to. When there is recognizable quid pro quo, and there are that many dollars flying around, just how much quo is ing due???

I'm on record as not supporting either candidate, but, on this count, to think Clinton is better than Trump? Take off the blue glasses. He's an rash, idiotic meglomaniac who might very well be beholden to outside interest. She's a maniacal, corrupt, power seeker who is beholden to financial and foreign interests, who bullied herself to the Democratic nomination. Voting against either of these candidates is legitimate, voting FOR either one is intellectually dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus Christ, are you not paying attention to the $$$$ being raised by the Democrat/Clinton machine, and the $$$$ raked in by the Clinton Foundation, and the $$$$ "earned" by the Clintons for giving speaches, and making appearances? How many BILLIONS does that amount to. When there is recognizable quid pro quo, and there are that many dollars flying around, just how much quo is ing due???

I'm on record as not supporting either candidate, but, on this count, to think Clinton is better than Trump? Take off the blue glasses. He's an rash, idiotic meglomaniac who might very well be beholden to outside interest. She's a maniacal, corrupt, power seeker who is beholden to financial and foreign interests, who bullied herself to the Democratic nomination. Voting against either of these candidates is legitimate, voting FOR either one is intellectually dishonest.

( s eyebrow)

Hillary Clinton is "maniacal"?

Honestly, if the "quid" is donating millions to a charity that spends more than 80% of its funds on actual charity, I can probably live with that.

One doesn't have to have "blue glasses" to compare the corruption. Any candidate, including it seems, Trump has to raise funds, and lots of it. I would point out Trump has pretty much outlined his opinion on such things, which is that he himself expects quid pro quo when it comes to politicians. Easy enough to believe that he wouldn't have much objection to that flowing the other way. That makes that bit a wash, IMO.

All politicians are given money for speeches. Reagan earned millions, Bush Sr. earned millions, Clinton earned millions. This is where people tie the money for these things to access. Let's grant that. To what effect? How is that different than Trumps funds?

My point wasn't that one wasn't that much more corrupt, although the pay to play is a lot softer in terms of corruption that directly owing billions to large corporations. In my mind that is all a wash. I point it out to Trump fanboys, because it is their version of colored glasses.

What tips the scale is the stupid he says, and the demagoguery. Suggesting McCain is a loser for getting captured. Hinting that taking out your opponent with "2nd amendment" means is acceptable.

It is the steady drip drip drip of hate, and bile, and stupidity that comes out of the mans mind.

The fact that he advocates torture, and thinks that ordering our service members to commit war crimes pushes the scale for me. I am already opposed to the damage that drone strikes are doing, and he would go quite farther.

Add to that Trump seems to wallow in ignorance like a pig in , and I don't have to forgive Clinton one iota for corruption. Trump is just as corrupt.

The difference is that one can find her ass with both hands, and one... can't.

[clambake]

Jesus Christ, are you not paying attention to the $$$$ being raised by the Democrat/Clinton machine, and the $$$$ raked in by the Clinton Foundation, and the $$$$ "earned" by the Clintons for giving speaches, and making appearances? How many BILLIONS does that amount to. When there is recognizable quid pro quo, and there are that many dollars flying around, just how much quo is ing due???

I'm on record as not supporting either candidate, but, on this count, to think Clinton is better than Trump? Take off the blue glasses. He's an rash, idiotic meglomaniac who might very well be beholden to outside interest. She's a maniacal, corrupt, power seeker who is beholden to financial and foreign interests, who bullied herself to the Democratic nomination. Voting against either of these candidates is legitimate, voting FOR either one is intellectually dishonest.

thats the best thing you've ever written.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus Christ, are you not paying attention to the $$$$ being raised by the Democrat/Clinton machine, and the $$$$ raked in by the Clinton Foundation, and the $$$$ "earned" by the Clintons for giving speaches, and making appearances? How many BILLIONS does that amount to. When there is recognizable quid pro quo, and there are that many dollars flying around, just how much quo is ing due???

I'm on record as not supporting either candidate, but, on this count, to think Clinton is better than Trump? Take off the blue glasses. He's an rash, idiotic meglomaniac who might very well be beholden to outside interest. She's a maniacal, corrupt, power seeker who is beholden to financial and foreign interests, who bullied herself to the Democratic nomination. Voting against either of these candidates is legitimate, voting FOR either one is intellectually dishonest.

Alternately:

Jesus Christ!! Have you not been paying attention to the total grabasstic way the moron has been running his campaign?

How many campaign leads has the guy had so far? Three?

[/end well-meant rant]

Seriously though, this is another major indicator for me. To call Trumps campaign "disorganized" is an understatement.

You want to see how someone would run things in the spotlight, his campaign should be a very obvious example. Disorganized, demoralized, and with a lot of turnover.
Sure, Trump can run a tightly-held corporation where he can make all the calls. Running a presidency that way is impossible. The US government's executive branch is 10 orders of magnitude larger than anything trump has EVER done.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, look at the steady drumbeat of stupid moves yourself:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...mpaign/486380/
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/23/1198242...itical-science
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/...minnesota.html

[RandomGuy]

Trumps campaign offers the kind of actual data and insight we should be paying attention to.

Don't take my word for yourself. Look at it. Really, truly look at it. Blow past the partisan blathering of the liberal media, and take a cold, hard look at the actions of his campaign.

Answer this:

Does his campaign appear organized? What would an organized, well-run campaign look like? What would it do?

[CosmicCowboy]

Um, sure.

I have gotten pretty ing angry after the GOP's voter suppression efforts, and Trump's campaign having exposed the ugly warts on the butt of the GOP.

The steady stream of stilted, hysterical right-wing bull has taken its toll. One can only stomach so much bile, before getting sick.

You tell me:

What is the reasonable reaction to extremists who are willing to actively lie to get their way?

[101A]

thats the best thing you've ever written.

Thanks. But it wasn't a very high bar.

[101A]

Trumps campaign offers the kind of actual data and insight we should be paying attention to.

Don't take my word for yourself. Look at it. Really, truly look at it. Blow past the partisan blathering of the liberal media, and take a cold, hard look at the actions of his campaign.

Answer this:

Does his campaign appear organized? What would an organized, well-run campaign look like? What would it do?

I think you've confused me with a Trump supporter.

[RandomGuy]

I think you've confused me with a Trump supporter.

Not really. The question was a general one to anybody. His campaign is a shambles, and he is having a hard time attracting talent, which is dangerous for the executive branch.

[clambake]

what cons utes for talent these days?

[RandomGuy]

what cons utes for talent these days?

First row right looks like Trumps foreign policy advisor...

[clambake]

i thought you were against "looks" when it comes to people.

[spurraider21]

i thought you were against "looks" when it comes to people.

he's against it or for when when it makes partisan sense

[Splits]

Good going, SA.

[mingus]

Yes, by an order of magnitude or two. Whatever her faults, she isn't a demagogue making racism acceptable by example.

(edit)
Trumps ego has forced him into some real whoppers. There is no comparison. He makes Hillary look downright honest.

That says a lot.

I think your getting a little carried away with this...lol "order of a magnitude". Please.

What Clinton lacks in having said things on record that may be seen as racist or at least insensitive toward x minority group (and she does have that on record, eg. "super predators" & the fact that it was only a decade or so ago where she finally started giving a about gay marriage & other LGBT issues), she makes up for in her support for policies that disproportionately affect minorities (eg. prison sentencing laws, NAFTA, illegal immigration).

She's a hypocrite.

She's running as a champion of women's rights, yet she's thrown water at/silenced all the women who in the past have made accusations against Bill Clinton.

I'm not buying the narrative she's any more decent a human than Trump. I think it's bull . I can't believe people actually buy that BS.

[rmt]

She is a liar of the first order and she keeps doing it - Tuesday night - again she looks straight at the camera and says on TV that classified emails are marked in the header and on and on. I guess she's trying to catch voters who haven't been paying attention and specifically haven't heard Comey go on about classified emails.

[SnakeBoy]

he's against it or for when when it makes partisan sense