Trumped

[daydreamer41]

To clarify, my post was about the statement. It was not meant to use one statement to characterize anyone, which would be very unfair. As written the section I quoted came off as heavy-handed big exaggeration. "80%...are Leftists".

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/06/23/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-trump-fact-check.html
[h=1]AP FACT CHECK: Trump Peddles Suspect Claims About Clinton[/h]WASHINGTON — In a speech skewering Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump assigned her far more influence than she had as secretary of state as he blamed her directly for a host of foreign policy ills. He also peddled some suspect allegations that she used her time as the top diplomat to enrich herself.Trump accused Clinton in his broad indictment Wednesday of announcing a withdrawal from Iraq that actually wasn't on her watch, pulled numbers out of nowhere on her plan for refugees and went beyond the established facts behind the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in stating starkly that she "left him there to die."
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims in the presidential campaign.
___
Some of his assertions and how they stack up with the facts:

TRUMP: "In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East." He blamed her for an invasion of Libya that "handed the country over to ISIS," for making Iran the dominant Islamic power in the region and for supporting regime change in Syria that led to a bloody civil war. He charged that her "disastrous strategy" of announcing a departure date from Iraq created another opening for ISIS there.
THE FACTS: These statements make only passing acquaintance with reality.
There was no U.S. invasion of Libya. Clinton initially opposed but then sought credit for the NATO-led air campaign to help rebels overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. (Trump spoke in support of U.S. intervention at the time.) While the violence destabilized Libya, Islamic State inroads there have been more recent and are largely limited to a small coastal area of the country.
Arguments about Iranian domination of the Middle East predate Clinton's tenure, going back a decade to the George W. Bush administration's deposing of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq.
While secretary of state, Clinton supported arming Syria's moderate rebels, but the Islamic State group only arrived later. It's unclear what effect such a policy would have had as President Barack Obama rejected the advice at the time.
And she had nothing to do with the "disastrous strategy" of giving a departure date from Iraq. It was the George W. Bush administration that announced the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2008.
___
TRUMP: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and his staff "made hundreds and hundreds of requests for security. They were desperate. They needed help. Hillary Clinton's State Department refused them all. She started the war that put them in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die."
THE FACTS: Trump greatly exaggerates the security requests, not all of which were denied, and gets the history of U.S.-Libyan relations wrong. The reference to security requests appears to reflect the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi's tally of "requests/concerns" related to the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. For many of those, there's no record of denials. And some security upgrades did occur before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed Stevens and three other Americans.
Clinton did not start the war in Libya. She supported a NATO intervention well after large-scale violence had broken out between Gadhafi's forces and rebels. Nor did the conflict put Stevens or any U.S. diplomat in Libya. The U.S. had maintained a full-fledged embassy there since President George W. Bush re-established diplomatic relations with Gadhafi's government in 2006.
Several congressional investigations have shown that Clinton had no role in military decisions related to Benghazi, and that it would have been impossible for U.S. armed forces to intervene in time to save Stevens.
___
TRUMP: "She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund."
THE FACTS: Trump's case that Clinton used her office for personal profiteering was based largely on sources of information that have been widely questioned, such as the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer. The book argues that Clinton and her husband used the State Department to enrich their family, but it does not provide evidence of direct connections between business dealings by foreign interests, sometimes involving the Clinton Foundation, and decisions by Clinton when she was secretary of state.
An AP review of State Department calendars did show that she opened her office to dozens of influential Democratic party fundraisers, Clinton loyalists and corporate donors to her family's global charity. The AP found no evidence of legal conflicts in Clinton's meetings, however.
___
TRUMP: "Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration."
THE FACTS: For a businessman, Trump is shaky on his numbers. The entire U.S. budget for refugee resettlement is less than $1.2 billion a year — and that includes refugees from Cuba, Bhutan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even including the value of all future public benefits they might receive — and excluding their contribution to the country through taxes — Trump's assertion about the cost of resettlement is still baffling.
___
TRUMP: "I started off in Brooklyn, New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business that today is worth well over $10 billion."
THE FACTS: Trump's $1 million loan from his father was just the beginning of his family subsidies, which included a far larger inheritance, loan guarantees and even occasional bailouts — one of which was found to be illegal by New Jersey casino regulators. As for the value of Trump's business, every independent appraisal has found his assets to be worth far less than he says; Forbes says Trump is worth less than half what he claims.
___
TRUMP: "Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was secretary of state — plus millions more for her foundation. The sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law.
Continue reading the main story



THE FACTS: Clinton is not sporting Brunei bling.
In September 2012, she accepted a $58,000 jewelry set with gold, sapphire and diamond earrings, a necklace and bracelet, given by the queen of Brunei when Clinton visited for meetings and to inaugurate an English-language training program, according to the Federal Register. The gift was not to her, but to the United States.
Federal law prohibits officials from keeping such gifts unless they pay the estimated value to the U.S. government. According to the State Department's protocol office, Clinton chose not to buy the jewelry, and instead turned it over to the General Services Administration — the standard procedure for most gifts from foreign leaders.
It's true that Brunei is an Islamic nation that observes Sharia law and has been widely criticized for its human rights record, particularly when it comes to gays and lesbians.
But gift exchanges are standard practice. As with almost all gifts to all officials, the Federal Register notice says "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. government."
___
TRUMP: "Our trade deficit with China soared 40 percent during Clinton's time as secretary of state."
THE FACTS: Trump's claim is more than double the actual increase. From late 2008 through 2012, a period coinciding with Clinton's tenure, the trade deficit with China rose 17.6 percent. Trump's campaign may be using data from the end of 2009 through 2013, when the deficit did rise 40 percent, but that does not match up with Clinton's time in office and leaves out a sharp, recession-induced drop in 2009.
More broadly, the secretary of state is not typically held responsible for the trade deficit, which mostly reflects the health of the U.S. and global economies, the difference in how much the nation spends and saves, and trade policies implemented by the U.S. trade representative.
___
TRUMP: "We are the highest-taxed nation in the world."
THE FACTS: Closer to the opposite is true.
The U.S. tax burden is actually one of the lowest among the 34 developed and large emerging-market economies that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Taxes made up 26 percent of the total U.S. economy in 2014, according to the OECD. That's far below Sweden's tax burden of 42.7 percent, Britain's 32.6 percent or Germany's 36.1 percent. Only three OECD members had a lower figure: Chile, South Korea and Mexico.
___
TRUMP: "She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States."
THE FACTS: It's not true that Clinton's plan would create open borders. Her plan does call for a pathway to citizenship that would allow people currently in the country illegally to stay, but only after going through a series of steps to become a citizen. On enforcement, Clinton has called for focusing on "detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety," but not ending enforcement outright.
___
TRUMP: "Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth, with no way to screen who they are, what they are, what they believe, where they come from."
THE FACTS: Clinton has called for the United States to continue to accept refugees, including as many as 65,000 from Syria. But Trump is wrong about Clinton's stance on refugee screening. She's never said she would scale back the current refugee processing system. Under that system, a person's beliefs are not generally a disqualifier for entrance into the U.S. Refugees are checked to make sure they don't have criminal records or have been identified by intelligence agencies as having ties to terrorist organizations.
___
TRUMP: "We will repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare. It is a total disaster."
THE FACTS: Job growth has been solid by historical standards since Obama's health care overhaul was signed into law in March 2010. Since then, employers have added nearly 14 million jobs and businesses have been on the longest hiring streak in the post-World War II era. And 2014 and 2015 were the two best years of private-sector hiring since the late 1990s. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, has fallen to 4.7 percent, an 8 ½ year low, from 9.9 percent when the law was passed.

And you post for pages and pages. Hmmmm.

 

[Passionné]

And you post for pages and pages. Hmmmm.

Post 263 has been edited for everyone.

One highlight: TRUMP: "We will repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare. It is a total disaster."

THE FACTS: "Job growth has been solid by historical standards since Obama's health care overhaul was signed into law in March 2010. Since then, employers have added nearly 14 million jobs and businesses have been on the longest hiring streak in the post-World War II era. And 2014 and 2015 were the two best years of private-sector hiring since the late 1990s. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, has fallen to 4.7 percent, an 8 ½ year low, from 9.9 percent when the law was passed."

WOW! Down from 9.9 under G.W. Bush to 4.7 under Obama. And 14 million jobs added to what Donald (4 times in bankruptcy) Trump calls a job killer.

 

[CLOUD 500]

Post 263 has been edited for everyone.

One highlight: TRUMP: "We will repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare. It is a total disaster."

THE FACTS: "Job growth has been solid by historical standards since Obama's health care overhaul was signed into law in March 2010. Since then, employers have added nearly 14 million jobs and businesses have been on the longest hiring streak in the post-World War II era. And 2014 and 2015 were the two best years of private-sector hiring since the late 1990s. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, has fallen to 4.7 percent, an 8 ½ year low, from 9.9 percent when the law was passed."

WOW! Down from 9.9 under G.W. Bush to 4.7 under Obama. And 14 million jobs added to what Donald (4 times in bankruptcy) Trump calls a job killer.

Yep and Daydreamer41 as usual will discount all facts. He will find some way to discredit it to convince and spread his right wing conservative propaganda. Look at Ronald Reagan's legacy ound: Daydreamer41 is a firm believe in trickle down economics. What he fails to understand either due to complete and utter ignorance or his shallow hatred for any other political stance but his conservative right-wing beliefs and this is basic economics - that in any capitalistic economy cyclical consumption is what drives it and the proliferate in other words the middle class drive the economy. If the rich business owners pay their employees so less who are the consumers then they will not be able to purchase the goods and services those same businesses are attempting to sell therefore the cycle of cyclical consumption breaks. This happens when corporations keep the majority of the wealth to themselves which is essentially what has been happening since the 1973 oil crisis which represented a major transitioning point in the wealth of the proliferate. This is the major reason trickle down economics fail. Furthermore in society corporations are still paying the least taxes. Right wing politicians help them to evade taxes such as the Panama scheme at the end it is the middle class paying the bulk of those taxes none which is good for the economy. What works is middle out economics. The theory is to to grow the economy from the middle out by investing in the middle class. This is a direct quote by Barack Obama on July 24, 2013-> “This growing inequality isn’t just morally wrong; it’s bad economics. When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country.”

The idea of middle out economics is the exact opposite to the failure of trickle down economics with tax cuts and draconian austerity spending plans outlines by the conservatives. Conservatives want to cut even more from education, medical research and infrastructure in order to give even more tax cuts to the rich and huge corporations in the hopes that it trickles down to the rest of us. Trickle down policies has been a huge failure. The capitalist economy is like monopoly... When one person has all the money the game is basically over. If the middle class cannot afford to buy the products and services that the businesses are selling then the economy collapses. This exactly what has been happening for the past several decades especially after the 1973 oil crisis. As wealth inequality grows economic growth has slowed and the vast majority of Americans have been financially squeezed. This is really simple economics anyone can get it.

Here are some key facts

• 
  Between 1979 and 2007, the income of the top 1% richest households saw their income nearly triple while the middle class incomes remained stagnant for the most part in comparison.

• The average CEO has gotten a raise close to 40% since 2009 but the average American is earning less then he or she did in 1999.

• Despite the tax cuts for the rich and for corporations under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush there was slower economic growth and job growth then when under Bill Clinton who raised taxes in 1993.

• The years following the Bush tax cuts these were the worst for job creation since the government began keeping records and the worst for business investment since WW2.

• Roughly 62% of the wealth recovered during this recovery has come in the form of higher stock prices which basically benefits the richest Americans and has done little to none for the middle class and especially nothing for the poor.

Opportunities for upward mobility in America have gotten harder to find over the past 30 years something which those over 50 have a hard time believing or understanding since they are not the one living it. The millennials are the ones paying the most they are living the jobless generation.

So in short middle out economics is:

1. The wealthy are not the job creators. The real job creators are the middle class consumers who buy what businesses large and small are selling.
2. Middle-Out economics is about growing the economy from the middle class out, not from the top down.

The proof is all these Obama's success compared to Reagan's and Bush's failure. Bush also nearly tripled the American debt funny since rightist conservatives always talk about economic austerity yet they always seem to find the money to spend on the military and wars. A testament to the conservatives stupidity.

WOW! Down from 9.9 under G.W. Bush to 4.7 under Obama. And 14 million jobs added to what Donald (4 times in bankruptcy) Trump calls a job killer.

Like so many right-wing conservatives they never earned their wealth they inherited just like Donald Trump did and they like to criticize Bernie Sanders for not working in life. Trump is no better. Trump like many rightists think that because they are rich that they got the divine right to remain rich. Donald Trump's legacy was to bring several companies to Chapter 11. This is to show how America favors the rich anyone with the big bucks can do whatever they want even run for politics for President or Governor.

BTW great post Passionné :thumb:

 

[Doc Holliday]

Great posts, guys....but it should come with a warning:

READER BEWARE: IF YOU SPEND YOUR ENTIRE LIFE LIVING IN THE RIGHT WING BUBBLE, YOUR HEALTH MAY GREATLY SUFFER FROM GETTING A DOSE OF REALITY OR IF YOU PREFER TO REMAIN A ZOMBIE AND IGNORANT TO THE TRUE FACTS, STOP READING IMMEDIATELY.

 

[jalimon]

Yep and Daydreamer41 as usual will discount all facts. He will find some way to discredit it to convince and spread his right wing conservative propaganda. Look at Ronald Reagan's legacy ound: Daydreamer41 is a firm believe in trickle down economics. What he fails to understand either due to complete and utter ignorance or his shallow hatred for any other political stance but his conservative right-wing beliefs and this is basic economics - that in any capitalistic economy cyclical consumption is what drives it and the proliferate in other words the middle class drive the economy. If the rich business owners pay their employees so less who are the consumers then they will not be able to purchase the goods and services those same businesses are attempting to sell therefore the cycle of cyclical consumption breaks. This happens when corporations keep the majority of the wealth to themselves which is essentially what has been happening since the 1973 oil crisis which represented a major transitioning point in the wealth of the proliferate. This is the major reason trickle down economics fail. Furthermore in society corporations are still paying the least taxes. Right wing politicians help them to evade taxes such as the Panama scheme at the end it is the middle class paying the bulk of those taxes none which is good for the economy. What works is middle out economics. The theory is to to grow the economy from the middle out by investing in the middle class. This is a direct quote by Barack Obama on July 24, 2013-> “This growing inequality isn’t just morally wrong; it’s bad economics. When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country.”

The idea of middle out economics is the exact opposite to the failure of trickle down economics with tax cuts and draconian austerity spending plans outlines by the conservatives. Conservatives want to cut even more from education, medical research and infrastructure in order to give even more tax cuts to the rich and huge corporations in the hopes that it trickles down to the rest of us. Trickle down policies has been a huge failure. The capitalist economy is like monopoly... When one person has all the money the game is basically over. If the middle class cannot afford to buy the products and services that the businesses are selling then the economy collapses. This exactly what has been happening for the past several decades especially after the 1973 oil crisis. As wealth inequality grows economic growth has slowed and the vast majority of Americans have been financially squeezed. This is really simple economics anyone can get it.

Here are some key facts

• Between 1979 and 2007, the income of the top 1% richest households saw their income nearly triple while the middle class incomes remained stagnant for the most part in comparison.

• The average CEO has gotten a raise close to 40% since 2009 but the average American is earning less then he or she did in 1999.

• Despite the tax cuts for the rich and for corporations under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush there was slower economic growth and job growth then when under Bill Clinton who raised taxes in 1993.

• The years following the Bush tax cuts these were the worst for job creation since the government began keeping records and the worst for business investment since WW2.

• Roughly 62% of the wealth recovered during this recovery has come in the form of higher stock prices which basically benefits the richest Americans and has done little to none for the middle class and especially nothing for the poor.

Opportunities for upward mobility in America have gotten harder to find over the past 30 years something which those over 50 have a hard time believing or understanding since they are not the one living it. The millennials are the ones paying the most they are living the jobless generation.

So in short middle out economics is:

1. The wealthy are not the job creators. The real job creators are the middle class consumers who buy what businesses large and small are selling.
2. Middle-Out economics is about growing the economy from the middle class out, not from the top down.

The proof is all these Obama's success compared to Reagan's and Bush's failure. Bush also nearly tripled the American debt funny since rightist conservatives always talk about economic austerity yet they always seem to find the money to spend on the military and wars. A testament to the conservatives stupidity.



Like so many right-wing conservatives they never earned their wealth they inherited just like Donald Trump did and they like to criticize Bernie Sanders for not working in life. Trump is no better. Trump like many rightists think that because they are rich that they got the divine right to remain rich. Donald Trump's legacy was to bring several companies to Chapter 11. This is to show how America favors the rich anyone with the big bucks can do whatever they want even run for politics for President or Governor.

BTW great post Passionné :thumb:

I love your post, great reading.

It could all be resumed to one sentence "This growing inequality isn’t just morally wrong; it’s bad economics."

So true. As long as anyone has not truly understood this, and as long as everyone stops thinking only about themselves, nothing will change. The inequality does not only leads to instability but to violence, poverty and eventually rebellion.

Cheers,

 

[PopeDover]

Apparently, the leader of the Dems (and next POTUS) was very busy the past year or so attending all these events explaining to these folks how wealth inequality is morally wrong and why something must be done

• April 28, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Richard Perry. Perry is CEO and president of Perry Capital, a hedge fund worth roughly $11 billion.
• April 28, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Doug Teitelbaum. Teitelbaum is the founder of Homewood Capital, a private equity investment firm.
• May 13, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Steve Rattner. Rattner is chairman of Willett Advisors, the investment arm of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s personal and philanthropic assets. He previously worked at Morgan Stanley and founded his own investment firm, the Quadrangle Group.
• May 13, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Marc Lasry. Lasry is president and CEO of Avenue Capital Group, an investment firm that focuses on distressed assets and private equity.
• May 28, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia, hosted by A.J. Johnson. Johnson is a founding partner of Georgetown Capital, a private equity firm.
• June 1, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Silda Wall. Wall is a principal at the New World Capital Group, a private equity firm.
• June 5, 2015 in Greenwich, Connecticut, hosted by Malcolm Weiner. Weiner was chairman of investment management firms the Millburn Corporation and ShareInVest before he retired.
• June 25, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Karen Persichilli Keogh and Eric Giola. Both Keogh and Giola are executives at JP Morgan Chase.
• June 25, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Blair Effron. Blair Effron founded Centerview Partners, an investment banking firm.
• June 29, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Martin Sosnoff. Sosnoff is CEO of Atalanta Sosnoff, a financial management firm.
• July 1, 2015 in Washington, D.C., hosted by Patrick Steel. Steel is managing director of FBR Capital Markets, a Virginia-based investment bank.
• July 21, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois, hosted by Rajiv Fernando. Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high-frequency stock-trading firm.
• July 22, 2015 in Raleigh, North Carolina, hosted by George Reddin. Reddin is managing director of FMI Capital Advisors, an investment banking firm.
• August 4, 2015 in Aspen, Colorado, hosted by Robert Hurst. Hurst is a managing director at Crestview Partners and a former vice chairman at Goldman Sachs.
• September 17, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois, hosted by J.B. Pritzker. Pritzker is an heir to the Hyatt fortune and runs The Pritzker Group, a private equity and venture capital firm.
• September 19, 2015 in Washington, D.C., hosted by Frank White. White is founder and CEO of DuSable Capital Management, a private equity firm.
• September 24, 2015 in Cresskill, New Jersey, hosted by Michael Kempner. Kempner was an operating adviser of Pegasus Capital Advisors, a private equity firm.
• September 25, 2015 in Greenwich, Connecticut, hosted by Cliff and Debbie Robbins. Robbins is CEO of Blue Harbor Group, a capital management firm.
• September 28, 2015 in Saratoga, California, hosted by Harry Plant. Plant was an executive director at UBS investment bank.
• November 11, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Howard Lutnick. Lutnick is chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, an investment bank.
• November 17, 2015 in New York, New York, hosted by Jay Snyder. Snyder is president of HBJ Investments, a private equity and venture capital firm that specializes in pharmaceutical companies.
• November 30, 2015 in Chevy Chase, Maryland, hosted by Jerry Johnson. Johnson is a founder of RLJ Equity Partners, a private equity firm. He previously served in senior investment banking roles at Bank of America, Wachovia, and Bear Stearns.
• December 1, 2015 in Miami Beach, Florida, hosted by Bob Wagner. Wagner is an executive at Silver Point Capital, a hedge fund management firm. He was previously a managing director at Goldman Sachs.
• December 3, 2015 in Los Angeles, California, hosted by Michael Kong. Kong is CEO of MAPTI Ventures, a private investment fund.
• December 6, 2015 in Washington, D.C., hosted by Julius Genachowski. Genachowski is managing director of Carlyle Investments, a wealth management company with over $193 billion in assets. He is also on the board of MasterCard and the founder of Rock Creek Ventures, a principal investment firm.
• December 11, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois, hosted by Howard Gottleib. Gottlieb is a partner at Glen Eagle Partners and Glenwood Partners, both private investment firms.
• December 14, 2015 in Potomac, Maryland, hosted by Frank Islam. Islam is founder and chairman of FI Investment Group, a private investment firm.
• January 27, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, hosted by Michael Forman. Forman is chairman and CEO of Franklin Square Capital Partners.
• January 27, 2016 in New York, New York, hosted by Charles Myers. Myers is a top executive at Evercore Partners, an investment banking firm.
• February 5, 2016 in Boston, Massachusetts, hosted by Jonathan Lavine. Lavine is a managing director of Bain Capital’s private equity sector. He is also founder and managing partner at Sankaty Advisors.
• February 16, 2016 in New York, New York, hosed by Matt Mallow. Mallow is senior managing director of BlackRock, an asset management firm with control of $4.5 trillion.

 

[jalimon]

Today in the news...

"Trump blames Obama for Brexit"

Next he will blame Obama for his past divorce and his 4 bankruptcy... What a fucking joke he is. I still to this day cannot believe this ass hole is running for president. Fucking shame for such a great country.

Cheers,

 

[Doc Holliday]

Today in the news...

"Trump blames Obama for Brexit"

Next he will blame Obama for his past divorce and his 4 bankruptcy... What a fucking joke he is. I still to this day cannot believe this ass hole is running for president. Fucking shame for such a great country.

Cheers,

And he'll blame Obama & Hillary for his past divorces to Ivana & Marla.

And of course, when Ivana once accused him of raping her, of course it had to be Obama's fault!! :lol:

And yes, he'll blame them for the JFK assassination also. Oops, he already did this and blamed Ted Cruz's dad!!! :fear:

Meanwhile, Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman's killer is still on the loose.....is Trump wondering about Obama's whereabouts on that night?? :noidea:

 

[cloudsurf]

Meanwhile, Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman's killer is still on the loose.....is Trump wondering about Obama's whereabouts on that night?? :noidea:

Wasn`t O.J. Made in America a great documentary ?
Unfortunate there was one scene showing the Donald embracing O.J.

 

[PopeDover]

:clap2:

so lots of people who voted remain on Brexit will vote leave on Scexit? or are they just remain type people no matter what, and vice versa for the leave voters? Fun stuff, I assume brings back memories for some locals that have been around awhile.

 

[minutemenX]

:clap2:

so lots of people who voted remain on Brexit will vote leave on Scexit? or are they just remain type people no matter what, and vice versa for the leave voters? Fun stuff, I assume brings back memories for some locals that have been around awhile.

Indeed! Though I am not a fan of EU bureaucracy this was not a wise move. So I would say:
Dear Brits, congratulation with Brexit! Now you can see that shooting yourself in the foot does not impress anybody. Go see the doctor.

 

[jalimon]

Indeed! Though I am not a fan of EU bureaucracy this was not a wise move. So I would say:
Dear Brits, congratulation with Brexit! Now you can see that shooting yourself in the foot does not impress anybody. Go see the doctor.

Indeed! Wait until the German begins to put some economic pressure on England. I hope nothern ireland and sclotland gain their independance and they unify with the german, french and other european leading country to crush these brit snobs.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Getting back to Trump, my father, the Republican convention historian, noted that there is precedent for a nomination for someone who wasn't previously running for President. In 1940, the presumptive nominee was Dewey but the Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie, who was then defeated in the general election by Roosevelt. Therefore my father believes that an Eisenhower doesn't necessarily have to be lurking in the background waiting to spoil the party of the presumptive 1952 nominee, Taft. There could be someone lurking behind the scenes who was not even previously running or involved in the debates. My father thinks the 1940 Wendell Wilkie scenario is not only a possibility but a solid possibility. A very good conspiracy that is well conceived could pull it off. The Republicans may need this to happen.

 

[jalimon]

Getting back to Trump, my father, the Republican convention historian, noted that there is precedent for a nomination for someone who wasn't previously running for President. In 1940, the presumptive nominee was Dewey but the Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie, who was then defeated in the general election by Roosevelt. Therefore my father believes that an Eisenhower doesn't necessarily have to be lurking in the background waiting to spoil the party of the presumptive 1952 nominee, Taft. There could be someone lurking behind the scenes who was not even previously running or involved in the debates. My father thinks the 1940 Wendell Wilkie scenario is not only a possibility but a solid possibility. A very good conspiracy that is well conceived could pull it off. The Republicans may need this to happen.

Very interesting. It's their only chance I think. Any half decent candidate could beat clinton... But not Trump or Cruz.

Cheers,

 

[minutemenX]

Very interesting. It's their only chance I think. Any half decent candidate could be clinton... But not Trump or Cruz.

Cheers,

Mike Bloomberg would fit and Hilary has no chance against him…

 

[EagerBeaver]

Below is the wiki biography of Wendell Willkie, who did not run in a single primary and had only recently converted from Democrat to Republican, yet stole the 1940 Republican nomination away from Taft, Vandeburg and Dewey at the convention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie

"The 1940 Republican National Convention opened at the Philadelphia Civic Center[a] on June 24, 1940. As the delegates assembled, they discussed the war, the candidates, and Roosevelt's appointment of two Republican interventionists to his cabinet four days before the convention. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War under President Taft and of State under Hoover, was restored to the War position, and Landon's 1936 running mate, Frank Knox, was appointed Navy Secretary. The cabinet appointments divided the Republicans, who accused Roosevelt of dirty politics.

Willkie arrived by train in Philadelphia on June 22, two days before the convention, and immediately attracted attention by walking from 30th Street Station to his hotel, answering questions from reporters and anyone else who could get close enough to be heard. Dewey, Vandenberg and Taft had large public headquarters, but Willkie's campaign was run from clandestine rooms at the Benjamin Franklin Hotel. Root's Willkie Clubs and other supporters bombarded the delegates with telegrams urging support for their candidate, to the annoyance of some. Key convention officials were Willkie supporters; these included House Minority Leader Joe Martin, Massachusetts' favorite son and permanent chairman of the convention. When the head of the Committee on Arrangements, Ralph Williams (deemed likely to support Taft) died just before the convention, he was succeeded by the vice chairman, Sam Pryor, a firm Willkie backer. This placed a Willkie supporter in charge of tickets for the public galleries.

The opening night of the convention saw the keynote speech by Governor Stassen; he subsequently announced his support for Willkie and became one of the candidate's floor managers. The second night featured a speech by the only living former president, Herbert Hoover, who hoped to stampede the convention to a third nomination. His address went almost unheard in the hall because of problems with the sound system. In the meantime, the Dewey campaign, faced with the German announcement that with France taken, Hitler's forces would sail on Britain, did its best to stem the flow of delegates to Willkie. Negotiations among Dewey, Taft, and Vandenberg came to nothing as none was willing to accept less than the presidential nomination. A blaze of publicity followed Willkie wherever he went, as he caucused with delegates and appeared at press conferences with supporters, including the entire Connecticut delegation. A strong minority of African Americans still supported the Republicans, and Willkie met with a group of them, urging those delegates to visit him in the White House in 1941.

Indiana Congressman Charles Halleck gave the nominating speech for Willkie on the evening of June 26, arguing that Willkie's recent conversion to the Republican Party was no reason not to nominate him, "is the Republican Party a closed corporation? Do you have to be born into it?" When Halleck mentioned Willkie's name, there were initially boos from some delegates, but they were quickly drowned out by those in the public balconies, who thunderously chanted, "We want Willkie!". Pryor had cut ticket allocations to delegations that were not for Willkie, and distributed thousands of standing room passes to Willkie partisans. The vocal support for Willkie among spectators led to complaints that other campaigns had been shorted in the distribution of tickets, but provided one of the convention's most dramatic moments.

Dewey had predicted he would have 400 of the 501 votes needed to nominate on the first ballot and kept nothing in reserve so that he might show momentum in future ballots. When delegates first balloted on the afternoon of June 27, he had only 360 to 189 for Taft, 105 for Willkie, and 76 for Vandenberg. On the second ballot, Dewey began to slip, falling to 338 to Taft's 203 and 171 for Willkie. The losses greatly damaged Dewey's campaign, as other than the trivial losses suffered in the early rounds of balloting by Warren G. Harding in 1920, no Republican candidate had ever lost support from the previous ballot and won the nomination. Dewey came under pressure from his advisors to withdraw during the dinner break that followed the second ballot, and when the convention resumed to chants of "We want Willkie!" from the packed galleries, Dewey continued to slip as the convention became a two-horse race between Taft and Willkie. Listening by radio from his hotel room, Willkie refused to make a deal to get support from Taft delegates in exchange for making the Ohioan his running mate, and became convinced he would lose on the fifth ballot. Dewey had planned to go to the convention and withdraw, hoping to stop Willkie by endorsing Taft, but by the time he decided this, the fifth ballot was about to begin and he could not get to the Civic Center in time. Willkie led with 429 delegates after the fifth ballot, while Taft held 377 and Dewey only 57. The large states whose votes still were not committed to one of the two leaders were Pennsylvania (Governor Arthur James was the favorite son) and Michigan, most of whose delegates stayed with Senator Vandenberg. Although Willkie had refrained from making deals to this point, to get Michigan, he agreed to allow the Republican organization there to pick that state's federal judges. The sixth ballot, held at 12:20 am on June 28, saw Taft, then Willkie take the lead. As those in the gallery continued to call for Willkie, Vandenberg released his delegates, most of whom went to Willkie. Pennsylvania also broke for him, making Willkie the Republican nominee for president on a vote that was made unanimous.

Willkie had offered the vice presidential nomination to Connecticut Governor Raymond Baldwin, a key supporter, but scuttled those plans after his advisors and Republican officials felt that a New York-Connecticut ticket would not give sufficient geographic balance. They urged Willkie to select the Senate Minority Leader, Oregon's Charles McNary. A lawyer, advocate of public power, and farmer, McNary was popular and respected in the West. Willkie agreed, and got Baldwin to withdraw as others persuaded McNary, who had called Willkie a tool of Wall Street after arriving in Philadelphia. The convention dutifully nominated McNary. Before departing Philadelphia, Willkie went to the Civic Center to appear before the delegates who had chosen him, becoming the first Republican nominee to speak to the convention after gaining its endorsement:

"Democracy and our way of life is facing the most crucial test it has ever faced in all its long history; and we here are not Republicans, alone, but Americans, to dedicate ourselves to the democratic way of life in the United States because here stands the last firm, untouched foothold of freedom in all the world."

 

[jalimon]

Mike Bloomberg would fit and Hilary has no chance against him…

Just realize I wrote 'could be' instead of 'could beat'!! You are so right, Bloomberg would have gone easy past Clinton.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Just realize I wrote 'could be' instead of 'could beat'!! You are so right, Bloomberg would have gone easy past Clinton.

The "would have" is unnecessary. For all that we know, powerful forces within the Republican Party have already secretly approached Bloomberg and have agreed to prop him at the Convention a la Wendell Willkie.

An interesting historical footnote on Willkie, who stole the 1940 nomination away from Dewey, and Taft, who had the 1952 nomination stolen away from him with assistance of Dewey, who threw his support to Eisenhower who then was elected President in 1952. Both men died shortly thereafter. Willkie died in 1944 at age 52, after a series of heart attacks. Taft died in the summer of 1953 of cancer which was actually discovered when he came down with symptoms while playing a round of golf with Eisenhower, who was a close friend and golf buddy despite having taken the nomination away from Taft. Both Wilkie and Taft would have died during their first terms in office, had they been elected President.

 

[Passionné]

Speaking of stolen conventions, try the 1912 Republican Convention with Taft versus T. Roosevelt.

Most Republican leaders had never liked Roosevelt because he was a strong active reformer they could not control. He was put up for Vice President in 1900 to bury him in that office and get him out of the New York governorship. Little did they know President McKinley would be assassinated. In 1912 though Roosevelt won every primary but one Republicans leaders did all they could to make Taft the candidate instead of Roosevelt.

-------

1912 Republican Convention
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/?no-ist

Tensions deepened in 1912, when Roosevelt began advocating the recall of judicial decisions through popular vote. With the courts tamed as an enemy to reform, Roosevelt then would press forward "to see that the wage-worker, the small producer, the ordinary consumer, shall get their fair share of the benefit of business prosperity." To enact his program, Roosevelt signaled that he would accept another term as president and seek the nomination of the Republican Party.




These ambitions revealed, Taft and his fellow conservatives deemed Roosevelt a dangerous radical. Once in power for a third term, they said, Roosevelt would be a perpetual chief executive. Roosevelt had become the most dangerous man in American history, said Taft, "because of his hold upon the less intelligent voters and the discontented." The social justice that Roosevelt sought involved, in Taft's opinion, "a forced division of property, and that means socialism."


The Republican National Committee, dominated by the Taft forces, awarded 235 delegates to the president and 19 to Roosevelt, thereby ensuring Taft's renomination. Roosevelt believed himself entitled to 72 delegates from Arizona, California, Texas and Washington that had been given to Taft. Firm in his conviction that the nomination was being stolen from him, Roosevelt decided to break the precedent that kept the candidates away from the national convention and lead his forces to Chicago in person.



On the first day, the Roosevelt forces lost a test vote on the temporary chairman. Taft's man, Elihu Root, prevailed. Roosevelt's supporters tried to have 72 of their delegates substituted for Taft partisans on the list of those officially allowed to take part in the convention. When that initiative failed, Roosevelt knew that he could not win, and had earlier rejected the idea of a compromise third candidate. "I'll name the compromise candidate. He'll be me.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Just realize I wrote 'could be' instead of 'could beat'!! You are so right, Bloomberg would have gone easy past Clinton.

I'm not so sure about this. Bloomberg himself doubts this, which is why he didn't make an independent run. He's a white jewish billionaire New Yorker. He didn't think he'd be very popular in the south and in the red many states. He realized that had he decided to run as an independent, it only would have harmed the democrats and would have given the upcoming election to Trump, which is why he didn't decide to run, among other things.

I also can't see the GOP welcoming someone with his political beliefs into its ranks. Sure, he'd be a much better to the entire planet than Donald Trump. Possibly even Hillary Clinton. But it would mean that the GOP would now hold the presidency, which would be a total disaster to the country, and the world. We can't have the Republicans holding office for as long as they own Congress. And it's no sure-thing that they won't hold onto the Senate.

Say what you want and think whatever you want to think, but over the past twenty years or so Republicans have been an absolute disaster not only to their country but also to the world whenever they've held office. We wouldn't be living in the world we live in today were it not for George W. Bush's 8 years in office. Bush will be known in history books as the worst US President in the history of the country whose disastrous policies changed the world for the worst. I have no doubt about it!