GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

holfresh wrote:Unarmed man with broken down car shot in Tulsa...

I don't get why they don't have better ways to temporarily put a guy out or down instead of using freaking bullets. Tranquilizer? Tazer? Some kind of stunner? With all the advancements in tech, don't get why bullets is the only way.

Welpee wrote:

holfresh wrote:Elizabeth Warren's epic take down of Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf during Senate Banking Hearings...One for the ages...

Is it too late to drop Hillary and replace her with Warren?

I do believe that Warren was not yet ready for 2016 at a national level and had some unfinished business to attend to. She has only been in office for 3 years as a Senator and does need to establish herself a little more and flesh out a larger than financial agenda (although it has been a good start). I wouldn't put it past her to run in either 4 or 8 years.

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:Unarmed man with broken down car shot in Tulsa...

I don't get why they don't have better ways to temporarily put a guy out or down instead of using freaking bullets. Tranquilizer? Tazer? Some kind of stunner? With all the advancements in tech, don't get why bullets is the only way.

The defense will be that she shot him cause she interpeted his reaction to being tased as lung for a weapon thus she was justified in using deadly force.

How Trump used his charity to settle his business's lawsuits
Embed Share
Play Video2:17
The Washington Post's David Fahrenthold explains the latest revelations about how Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may have violated the IRS's rules regarding charitable funds. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.

In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.

The check to charity from the Trump Foundation.

In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.

The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Trump used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting his chain of hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Trump spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money for a portrait of himself bought at a charity fundraiser.

Or, rather, another portrait of himself.

Several years earlier, Trump had used $20,000 from the Trump Foundation to buy a different, six foot-tall portrait.
Reid slams Trump over charity: 'Our country is Trump's next target'
Embed Share
Play Video3:59
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) railed against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump from the Senate floor Sept. 20. Reid accused Trump of being "incapable of making money honestly." (C-SPAN)

If the Internal Revenue Service were to find that Trump violated self-dealing rules, the agency could require him to pay penalty taxes or to reimburse the foundation for all the money it spent on his behalf. Trump is also facing scrutiny from the office of the New York attorney general, which is examining whether the foundation broke state charity laws.

More broadly, these cases also provide new evidence that Trump ran his charity in a way that may have violated U.S. tax law and gone against the moral conventions of philanthropy.
Content from EPIX NetworkThe price of power
When the whole world is watching, there's no room for the mistakes that normal people make.

“I represent 700 nonprofits a year, and I’ve never encountered anything so brazen,” said Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who advises charities at the Venable law firm in Washington. After The Post described the details of these Trump Foundation gifts, Tenenbaum described them as “really shocking.”

“If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in a while,” Tenenbaum said.

The Post sent the Trump campaign a detailed list of questions about the four cases, but received no response.

The New York attorney general’s office declined to comment when asked whether its inquiry would cover these new cases of possible self-dealing.
What we know about Trump's charitable giving
Embed Share
Play Video1:24
Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold is investigating how much Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has given to charity over the past seven years. Here's what he found. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Trump founded his charity in 1987 and, for years, was its only donor. But in 2006, Trump gave away almost all of the money he had donated to the foundation, leaving it with just $4,238 at year’s end, according to tax records.

Then, he transformed the Trump Foundation into something rarely seen in the world of philanthropy: a name-branded foundation whose namesake provides none of its money. Trump gave relatively small donations in 2007 and 2008, and afterward: nothing. The foundation’s tax records show no donations from Trump since 2009.

[In 2007, Trump had to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times.]

Its money has come from other donors, most notably pro-wrestling executives Vince and Linda McMahon, who gave a total of $5 million from 2007 to 2009, tax records show. Trump remains the foundation’s president, and he told the IRS in his latest public filings that he works half an hour per week on the charity.

The Post has previously detailed other cases in which Trump used the charity’s money in a way that appeared to violate the law.

In 2013, for instance, the foundation gave $25,000 to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R). That gift was made around the same time that Bondi’s office was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. It didn’t.

Tax laws say nonprofits such as the Trump Foundation may not make political gifts. Trump staffers blamed the gift on a clerical error. After The Post reported on the gift to Bondi’s group this spring, Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax and reimbursed the Trump Foundation for the $25,000 donation.

In other instances, it appeared that Trump may have violated rules against self-dealing.

In 2012, for instance, Trump spent $12,000 of the foundation’s money to buy a football helmet signed by NFL quarterback Tim Tebow.

And in 2007, Trump’s wife, Melania, bid $20,000 for the six-foot-tall portrait of Trump, done by a “speed painter” during a charity gala at Mar-a-Lago. Later, Trump paid for the painting with $20,000 from the foundation.

In those cases, tax experts said, Trump was not allowed to simply keep these items and display them in a home or business. They had to be put to a charitable use.

Trump’s campaign has not responded to questions about what became of the helmet or the portrait.
After the settlement, Trump put a slightly smaller flag farther from the road and mounted it on a 70-foot pole as pictured in this Nov. 1, 2015 photo. (Rosalind Helderman/The Washington Post)

The four new cases of possible self-dealing were discovered in the Trump Foundation’s tax filings. While Trump has refused to release his personal tax returns, the foundation’s filings are required to be public.

The case involving the flagpole at Trump’s oceanfront Mar-a-Lago Club began in 2006, when the club put up a giant American flag on the 80-foot pole. Town rules said flagpoles should be 42 feet high at most. Trump’s contention, according to news reports, was: “You don’t need a permit to put up the American flag.”

The town began to fine Trump, $1,250 a day.

Trump’s club sued in federal court, saying that a smaller flag “would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump’s . . . patriotism.”

They settled.

The town waived the $120,000 in fines. In September 2007, Trump wrote the town a letter, saying he had done his part as well.

“I have sent a check for $100,000 to Fisher House,” he wrote. The town had chosen Fisher House, which runs a network of comfort homes for the families of veterans and military personnel receiving medical treatment, as the recipient of the money. Trump added that, for good measure, “I have sent a check for $25,000” to another charity, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.

Trump provided the town with copies of the checks, which show that they came from the Trump Foundation.

In the town of Palm Beach, nobody seems to have objected that the fines assessed on Trump’s business were being erased by a donation from a charity.

“I don’t know that there was any attention paid to that at the time. We just saw two checks signed by Donald J. Trump,” said John Randolph, the Palm Beach town attorney. “I’m sure we were satisfied with it.”

Excerpt from a settlement filed in federal court in 2007.

In the other case in which a Trump Foundation payment seemed to help settle a legal dispute, the trouble began with a hole-in-one.

In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y.

Greenberg won a $1 million prize. Briefly.

Later, Greenberg was told that he had won nothing. The prize’s rules required that the shot had to go 150 yards. But Trump’s course had allegedly made the hole too short.

Greenberg sued.

Eventually, court papers show, Trump’s golf course signed off on a settlement that required it to make a donation of Greenberg’s choosing. Then, on the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation.

That money came from the Trump Foundation, according to the tax filings of both Trump’s and Greenberg’s foundations.

Greenberg’s foundation reported getting nothing that year from Trump personally or from his golf club.

Both Greenberg and Trump have declined to comment.

Several tax experts said that the two cases appeared to be clear cases of self-dealing, as defined by the tax code.

The Trump Foundation had made a donation, it seemed, so that a Trump business did not have to.

Rosemary E. Fei, a lawyer in San Francisco who advises nonprofits, said both cases clearly fit the definition of self-dealing.

“Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity,” Fei said. “But the obligation was Trump’s. And you can’t have a charitable foundation paying off Trump’s personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing.”

The Trump International Hotel on Sept. 15. (Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)

In another instance, from 2013, the Trump Foundation made a $5,000 donation to the D.C. Preservation League, according to the group and tax filings. That nonprofit’s support has been helpful for Trump as he has turned the historic Old Post Office Pavilion on Washington’s Pennsylvania Avenue NW into a luxury hotel.

The Trump Foundation’s donation to that group bought a “sponsorship,” which included advertising space in the programs for three big events that drew Washington’s real estate elite. The ads did not mention the foundation or anything related to charity. Instead, they promoted Trump’s hotels, with glamorous photos and a phone number to call to make a reservation.

“The foundation wrote a check that essentially bought advertising for Trump hotels?” asked John Edie, the longtime general counsel for the Council on Foundations, when a Post reporter described this arrangement. “That’s not charity.”

The last of the four newly documented expenditures involves the second painting of Trump, which he bought with charity money.

It happened in 2014, during a gala at Mar-a-Lago that raised money for Unicorn Children’s Foundation — a Florida charity that helps children with developmental and learning disorders.

The gala’s main event was a concert by Jon Secada. But there was also an auction of paintings by Havi Schanz, a Miami Beach-based artist.
A painting by artist Havi Schanz of Donald Trump. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)
Trump with the painting that he bought. (Photo provided by Havi Schanz)

One was of Marilyn Monroe. The other was a four foot-tall portrait of Trump: a younger-looking, mid-’90s Trump, painted in acrylic on top of an old architectural drawing.

Trump bought it for $10,000.

Afterward, Schanz recalled in an email, “he asked me about the painting. I said, ‘I paint souls, and when I had to paint you, I asked your soul to allow me.’ He was touched and smiled.”

A few days later, the charity said, a check came from the Trump Foundation. Trump himself gave nothing, according to Sharon Alexander, the executive director of the charity.

Trump’s staff did not respond to questions about where that second painting is now. Alexander said she had last seen it at Trump’s club.

“I’m pretty sure we just left it at Mar-a-Lago,” she said, “and his staff took care of it.”

The Washington Post has contacted more than 250 charities with some ties to the GOP nominee in an effort to find proof of the millions he has said he donated. We've been mostly unsuccessful.

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

You are completely unrealistic of the possibilities given climate when Obama took office...Did we forget the global meltdown on hand..Saving Wall Street which saved our economy and the global finance as a whole might seem like a right wing thing to do...I'm sure that are a lot of socialist on the left whose 401k benefited as well...Maybe we should all be hunting for our food...

Maybe we should just let the largest gap between rich and poor in several thousand years (no exaggeration) get wider.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama did not get the outcome he wanted. You install and keep in place some same people who helped create this recession, when your proposed and enacted solutions are failed conservative policies, you are getting exactly what you want, and by enabling this type of behavior we are getting exactly what we deserve.

You are promoting rhetoric that is opposite of the right wing nuts...If you don't get all you want then you failed...He wasn't able to get the health care plan he wanted so he compromised and took what he could get..20 million more people have healthcare..Failure??..Obama says himself yu can let the good be the enemy of the great..If great can't be done then take the good...He tried to get a budget that struck a "Grand Bargain" and Boehner couldn't get his guys to sign off..It would have been a huge deal fiscally for this economy...The FED is now left to manage the economy alone with no help from legislators to implement any structural reforms and we will pay the price..Dodd Frank has had an enormous effect on Wall Steet...It has shut down businesses that weren't even involved in any wrong doing with it's overreaching approach...Casualty of war I guess right...Regular people work at these institutions too..

But you talk about conservatives policies, point to the socialist system the is working better than this system...Lord knows you have many to choose from...It's nice to be idealistic but someone has to govern..

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

You are completely unrealistic of the possibilities given climate when Obama took office...Did we forget the global meltdown on hand..Saving Wall Street which saved our economy and the global finance as a whole might seem like a right wing thing to do...I'm sure that are a lot of socialist on the left whose 401k benefited as well...Maybe we should all be hunting for our food...

Maybe we should just let the largest gap between rich and poor in several thousand years (no exaggeration) get wider.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama did not get the outcome he wanted. You install and keep in place some same people who helped create this recession, when your proposed and enacted solutions are failed conservative policies, you are getting exactly what you want, and by enabling this type of behavior we are getting exactly what we deserve.

You are promoting rhetoric that is opposite of the right wing nuts...If you don't get all you want then you failed...He wasn't able to get the health care plan he wanted so he compromised and took what he could get..20 million more people have healthcare..Failure??..Obama says himself yu can let the good be the enemy of the great..If great can't be done then take the good...He tried to get a budget that struck a "Grand Bargain" and Boehner couldn't get his guys to sign off..It would have been a huge deal fiscally for this economy...The FED is now left to manage the economy alone with no help from legislators to implement any structural reforms and we will pay the price..Dodd Frank has had an enormous effect on Wall Steet...It has shut down businesses that weren't even involved in any wrong doing with it's overreaching approach...Casualty of war I guess right...Regular people work at these institutions too..

But you talk about conservatives policies, point to the socialist system the is working better than this system...Lord knows you have many to choose from...

Obamacare would have been great with price controls. Never entered the conversation. The price of these plans are getting more expensive by the year, and offering less coverage. The "Grand Bargain" you speak of would have resulted in deep cuts to SS and Medicare while offering corporate America more huge tax cuts they dont need. Thats no fing bargain.

Social Security is the most successful anti poverty program in the history of the world. Medicare is more efficient than the health care industry. If anything we should be making medicare available to everyone, and expanding social security.

You keep recycling that old tired "socialist" meme. I come from a long line of capitalists, I am a big proponent of capitalism, but I dont want everything privatized. Dont want a private police force, dont want a private firefighters, among other institutions. Hate to break it to you but those things as they are now is socialism. We saw what happened with private prisons Don't want everything socialized, but I dont want everything privatized either. Its about balance. Also dont want competition squashed which is happening right now with all this conglomeration and deregulation.

You are the first person Ive read who actually defended the fed. Let me tell you what the fed did for the economy. After the crash happened, the fed gave the big banks hundreds of billions of dollars in almost interest free loans without any strings attached. You know what they did with the money? They didnt use it to lend money, (they actually jacked up cc rates) they used the money to buy T-bills. They used the money meant to spur the economy they got at a lower interest rate and made money off the T bills. The fed did nothing about it. The banks in effect lended our taxpayer dollars back to us. Thank you fed. They continue to loan money to the banks interest free which is boosting the stock market, boosting the bank accounts of the one percent, but did almost nothing for anyone else. And you want to praise these people?

I used to think that republicans were the only ones who bought the party line whatever it is, but its clear that many democrats are just as bad.

JesseDark wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

JesseDark wrote:I watched all the Sunday morning news shows this morning and not a single question to any Trump surrogate about when he will be releasing his taxes or the letter stating he was being audited. Very frustrating. Why not follow the question about President Obama's birth certificate with a tax question?

Who give a F about his taxes--have you ever walked into Trump Tower--the bottom line is the guy has more $ than 99.999999999% of people out there. We get around by car he gets around by private plane. Whatever his taxes say or dont say dont really prove relevant to over all wealth anyway.

By the way I think you said something about racism with Trump. What IF one of these days one of these fckers sit next to your son or daughter and lets a bomb go off and lets we'll see just how fast your tune changes. Because it has happened to you doesnt mean it wont. The bottom line right now. If your a police officer in the uS you now have 10X worse of a thought process with Africans Americans and believe me most Americans DO NOT want to sit next to someone from the ME --its sad both ways but true both ways.

To give an analogy Trump is a guy who dosn't what to show his phone to his spouse cause he know what it will reveal about himself. He has done the calculus and sees there is more to gain by hiding his tax rate and lack of charitable contributions from the American people and saps lack you believe there is nothing to give a F about.

Of course no one wants loved ones or anyone to be killed or injured. As an African American my son or daughter has greater odds of being killed by a rogue cop who felt threaten by their blackness than a terrorist. Trump is offering only tough talk, a sugar pill, for folks who are looking to turn back the clock.

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

You are completely unrealistic of the possibilities given climate when Obama took office...Did we forget the global meltdown on hand..Saving Wall Street which saved our economy and the global finance as a whole might seem like a right wing thing to do...I'm sure that are a lot of socialist on the left whose 401k benefited as well...Maybe we should all be hunting for our food...

Maybe we should just let the largest gap between rich and poor in several thousand years (no exaggeration) get wider.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama did not get the outcome he wanted. You install and keep in place some same people who helped create this recession, when your proposed and enacted solutions are failed conservative policies, you are getting exactly what you want, and by enabling this type of behavior we are getting exactly what we deserve.

You are promoting rhetoric that is opposite of the right wing nuts...If you don't get all you want then you failed...He wasn't able to get the health care plan he wanted so he compromised and took what he could get..20 million more people have healthcare..Failure??..Obama says himself yu can let the good be the enemy of the great..If great can't be done then take the good...He tried to get a budget that struck a "Grand Bargain" and Boehner couldn't get his guys to sign off..It would have been a huge deal fiscally for this economy...The FED is now left to manage the economy alone with no help from legislators to implement any structural reforms and we will pay the price..Dodd Frank has had an enormous effect on Wall Steet...It has shut down businesses that weren't even involved in any wrong doing with it's overreaching approach...Casualty of war I guess right...Regular people work at these institutions too..

But you talk about conservatives policies, point to the socialist system the is working better than this system...Lord knows you have many to choose from...

Obamacare would have been great with price controls. Never entered the conversation. The price of these plans are getting more expensive by the year, and offering less coverage. The "Grand Bargain" you speak of would have resulted in deep cuts to SS and Medicare while offering corporate America more huge tax cuts they dont need. Thats no fing bargain.

Social Security is the most successful anti poverty program in the history of the world. Medicare is more efficient than the health care industry. If anything we should be making medicare available to everyone, and expanding social security.

You keep recycling that old tired "socialist" meme. I come from a long line of capitalists, I am a big proponent of capitalism, but I dont want everything privatized. Dont want a private police force, dont want a private firefighters, among other institutions. Hate to break it to you but those things as they are now is socialism. We saw what happened with private prisons Don't want everything socialized, but I dont want everything privatized either. Its about balance. Also dont want competition squashed which is happening right now with all this conglomeration and deregulation.

You are the first person Ive read who actually defended the fed. Let me tell you what the fed did for the economy. After the crash happened, the fed gave the big banks hundreds of billions of dollars in almost interest free loans without any strings attached. You know what they did with the money? They didnt use it to lend money, (they actually jacked up cc rates) they used the money to buy T-bills. They used the money meant to spur the economy they got at a lower interest rate and made money off the T bills. The fed did nothing about it. The banks in effect lended our taxpayer dollars back to us. Thank you fed. They continue to loan money to the banks interest free which is boosting the stock market, boosting the bank accounts of the one percent, but did almost nothing for anyone else. And you want to praise these people?

I used to think that republicans were the only ones who bought the party line whatever it is, but its clear that many democrats are just as bad.

For some reason, you seem to think that the gyrations of the stock market doesn't affect the 99%...Please see job losses 2008-09..That is a result of a slumping stock market..The FED loan the banks 370 billion and got back 42 billion in interest..Not exactly free...So the FED give the banks money and the banks do what banks do..Your prescription was to keep making the loans that got the banks in trouble in the first place??..I don't get it..Do you understand what would have happened if banks were allowed to go under???..

There are many more points I can touch upon but don't have the time now...The problem with social security is that we have made more promised payouts than the money we actually have in the coffers...It has to be addressed..

Of course I understand that. Do you understand that 95 percent of the gains from the stock market during the Obama administration went to the one percent? How many times do I have to explain to you that almost all the economic gains went to only one percent of the population? You seem to be taking that in stride, to put it mildly, as in you dont seem to give a ****.

As for the return on the investment. The amount the banks allegedly paid out, considering their role in the crash. The tens of millions of lives they shattered, the tens of thousands of people who were driven to suicide because their greed, without any jail time. They got off real easy.

Social Security doesnt add one cent to the national debt. It was actually running a big surplus but the surplus went into bonds by law which were spent. W spent a big chunk of it. The system itself works, if anything it should be reformed so that the surplus cant be spent.

Of course I understand that..But what are you going to do, wave a magic wand and have it go to the 99%??..The banks had to be saved so we don't end up like Venezuela...The banks aren't being saved to prop up the stock market, The banks are being saved to keep your supermarket open....These banks owe 100s of millions of dollars in forward contracts to each other...If one or two go down then we are all screwed...

You seem to be in the under the mistaken impression IMO that the only way this recovery was going to happen is if the people who were largely responsible for the crash would be the only ones to get bailed out, and everyone else would get the shaft. This was no accident.

Look at the charts for every recovery since and including the great depression, and you will find that this is the first recovery that almost entirely benefited the rich. You really think this was an accident? Ask yourself which economy does better long term, one that benefits most of the population or a very tiny sliver of it?

What happens when people are tired of getting the short of end of the stick? Too many put Trump signs in their yard and blame other races for problems brought on them mostly by white people.