Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[SgtSpiderMan]

You make her point for her. When he called JEB! low energy, it stuck.

When he dismissed "little" Marco, it was effective.

When he finally engaged "lyin'" Ted,

It worked.



"Corrupt" Hillary hit the nail..., too easy, it tore into the Achilles' Heel of her status as inevitable, invincible and invulnerable, no mortal politician she...

"Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trooper. Her history is far from being over, I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president."

Trump

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Drumpf is an effective nickname only to the people who employ it. To the rest of us, it does not convey that which you think it is conveying when you use it. It just looks to us like it's the best you can do, and while imitation is a most sincere form of flattery, it should be imitation that is effective and more well-thought out...


Trump's were effective to people who heard them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trooper. Her history is far from being over, I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president."

Trump

This isn't a point. It is time-dated material from a time when he needed favors from them.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump 45.4

Clinton 43.0

 

[Disgustipated]

@mangiotto: Trump in Indiana today with Bobby Knight, who advised rape victims they should try to enjoy it; convicted murderer Don King; and Omarosa.

 

[Que]

Calling him Drumpf is an effective put down because it exposes all of his hypocrisies.

He calls HRC corrupt, but he's been caught doing the same or worse.
He runs on a law and order platform but he breaks the law and refuses to be accountable when he does.

How does it "expose all his hypocracies?"

 

[BotanyBoy]

Calling him Drumpf is an effective put down because it exposes all of his hypocrisies.

How exactly does a put down expose all of a persons hypocrisies?

Sounds like some serious deep to me, Level: Legendary.

calls HRC corrupt, but he's been caught doing the same or worse.

Did you find out which federal office Trump held and abused???

Or are you still pushing your lies?

 

[phrodeau]

How does it "expose all his hypocracies?"

Good point, it falls far short of exposing all his hypocrisies. They are legion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Good point, it falls far short of exposing all his hypocrisies. They are legion.

Name just one that name exposes......

 

[phrodeau]

Name just one that name exposes......

Seriously?

OK, Donald Trump is the grandson of German immigrant Friedrich Drumpf.

Trump says that Germany has been compromised by terrorism, and America should not allow anyone from Germany into the country.

Get it now? He's part of an immigrant family who wants to stop immigration.

 

[snugglestruggle]

^^^^^^ *Chuckles*

 

[BotanyBoy]

Seriously?

OK, Donald Trump is the grandson of German immigrant Friedrich Drumpf.

Trump says that Germany has been compromised by terrorism, and America should not allow anyone from Germany into the country.

Get it now? He's part of an immigrant family who wants to stop immigration.

He never claimed to want to stop immigration as far as I know.

You do realize that controlled immigration instead of a free for all isn't the same as stoping immigration right?

That's also not hypocrisy, Trump isn't an immigrant.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Do some reading on their efforts in Haiti and the funneling of donations to her brother and then get back to me. I stopped reading as soon as I discovered your willful ignorance of the workings of the Clinton Foundation.

Dupe is a strong word. I have stated many times and do so again; if you are unwilling to hold her accountable for acts in public office, I don't give a shit about what he did in the private sector. I'm not voting for either one of them. As far as I am concerned she is a corrupt politician (I know, a possible oxymoron). He might be corrupt, but he's not a politician. He's Rodney Dangerfield explaining how the real world works to the smug and arrogant professor of theories...

Why would you not care? He's running for the highest office in the land. Because he's never held an elected office before he gets a clean slate?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why would you not care? He's running for the highest office in the land. Because he's never held an elected office before he gets a clean slate?

Has anyone suggested he gets a clean slate?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Has anyone suggested he gets a clean slate?

4est seemed to be implying that because he is not a politician his actions should be held to a different standard.

 

[BotanyBoy]

4est seemed to be implying that because he is not a politician his actions should be held to a different standard.

Well, different standard isn't a clean slate.

And why wouldn't they be held to different standards?

One is a salesman the other is a Senator/SoState.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Well, different standard isn't a clean slate.

And why wouldn't they be held to different standards?

True. I could have phrased it better, but he did say he doesn't give a shit about what Trump did in the private sector, if one doesn't ascribe to his veiws on Hillary.

Because they are running for the same office.

 

[BotanyBoy]

True. I could have phrased it better, but he did say he doesn't give a shit about what Trump did in the private sector, if one doesn't ascribe to his veiws on Hillary.

Fair enough.

Because they are running for the same office.

True.

If only people were trying to hold them to the same standard.

Unfortunately for (D)'s Trump has never held office....he's never abused his powers of FORCE, something explicitly reserved for government.

Hillary has, and that is the most uphill battle HRC's campaign faces. They just can't say "Trump took money for political favors too!!" because he hasn't.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Fair enough.



True.

If only people were trying to hold them to the same standard.

Unfortunately for (D)'s Trump has never held office....he's never abused his powers of FORCE, something explicitly reserved for government.

Hillary has, and that is the uphill battle HRC's campaign faces.

Being a slimy salesman just isn't the same level of shit bag as being a top tier federal officer who whores/abuses the powers of their office.

In your eyes. Tell that to all of the contractors he has left high and dry, the folks he refused to rent to, the workers he's screwed over.

Back to what I was saying earlier, do you think his character will magically change if he were to be elected?

 

[BotanyBoy]

In your eyes. Tell that to all of the contractors he has left high and dry, the folks he refused to rent to, the workers he's screwed over.

I would gladly do so. They CHOSE to do bidniz with Trump. Nobody gets any choice when the government decides to fuck them.

So you don't think there is a fundamental difference between voluntary agreements and the use of force against those who do not voluntarily agree?

Because most people find giving up their money/time voluntarily far different than being forced by the power of government under penalty of law.

Back to what I was saying earlier, do you think his character will magically change if he were to be elected?

Oh absolutely not, and I'm not a Trump supporter.

I just think the using force of government changes the level of scummy.

If I sell someone my property and they fail to pay in full it's different than the government kicking my door in and taking the shit from me at the end of a gun.

 

[phrodeau]

He never claimed to want to stop immigration as far as I know.

You do realize that controlled immigration instead of a free for all isn't the same as stoping immigration right?

That's also not hypocrisy, Trump isn't an immigrant.

That shows what you know about what Trump has said. Here is an exact quote from his convention speech:

Lastly, and very importantly we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don't want them in our country.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why would you not care? He's running for the highest office in the land. Because he's never held an elected office before he gets a clean slate?

No, because everything that he has been accused of, the Clintons have done and on a much longer and larger scale while supposedly serving the public. Especially in Arkansas, all of their scams took advantage of the people they were supposed to protect; instead of going after the scams, they got into bed with the scammers in order to make money, be it the cattle futures or Whitewater and they used the power of government and press to insulate themselves from any blowback. Donald Trump has had no such protection and no serious charges have ever been pinned on him, probably because he was (and probably still is) a Democrat.

Too many people are engaging in a false equivalency.

If his misdeeds make him suspect for the highest office in the land, how does it not cast equal doubt on her ascension to the highest office in the land?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

4est seemed to be implying that because he is not a politician his actions should be held to a different standard.

Yes, but it is the past tense.

Law enforcement and civil suit held him to a different standard than enjoyed by Clinton Inc.

 

[xbb]

But the FLAGPOLE

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Obama Admin Refuses To Say Whether Clinton Pal Violated Foreign Lobbying Law.

[Sid] Blumenthal appears to have engaged in such activity when on Sept. 3, 2012, he sent a memo to Hillary Clinton on behalf of John Kornblum, an international lobbyist who served as ambassador to Germany during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As was disclosed in the memo, Kornblum was working for Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Georgian billionaire who was head of the Georgian Dream political party. An ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, Ivanishvili was challenging Mikheil Saakashvili, a U.S. ally.

Blumenthal told Clinton that the Georgian election “could be a potential hot spot a month before the US election.”

“Kornblum suggests that a politically beleaguered Saakashvili might ratchet up tensions with Russia before the election, drawing Republican attention and creating a cudgel to beat the Obama administration as soft on Russia,” wrote Blumenthal, a former journalist who worked in the Bill Clinton White House.

Putin’s friend Ivanishvili and his Georgian Dream Party went on to beat Saakachvili in the October, 2012 election, and Blumenthal was at the time a well-paid, full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation.

 

[xbb]

But the FLAGPOLE

CLAIM: David Brock is laundering money.

David Brock has 7 non-profits, 3 Super PACs, one 527-committee, one LLC, one joint fundraising committee, and one unregistered solicitor crammed into his office in Washington DC.

Uncovered records expose a constant flow of money between these organizations.

The Bonner Group, his professional solicitor, works off a commission. Every time money gets passed around, Bonner receives a 12.5% cut.

Nonprofits are required to disclose who they give cash grants to.

But they aren’t required to disclose who gave them cash grants.

This weak system of one way verification is being abused by Brock. He’s been cycling money between his organizations for years, and the Bonner Group’s 12.5% commission gets triggered after every pass.

Seems legit.

More:

Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:

1.Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation

•The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
•Media Matters would retain $930,000

2. Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
•The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750

3. The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
•The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031

In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.

As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.

Read the whole thing. But rather than “bizarre,” the scenario sounds more like “business as usual” in Clintonland.