[Donna]

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

His tax returns don't really concern me. That is a wedge issue for undecided voters.

It's not a wedge issue. There are important things that could be revealed. Is he in debt to the Chinese/Russians? Is he avoiding taxes? Is he laundering money? For all the hooplah made about Clinton, she released her tax returns and those of the Clinton foundation and her and her husband pledged to step down from the Clinton Foundation AND they will not be taking foreign donations anymore.

[Donna]

It's not a wedge issue. There are important things that could be revealed. Is he in debt to the Chinese/Russians? Is he avoiding taxes? Is he laundering money? For all the hooplah made about Clinton, she released her tax returns and those of the Clinton foundation and her and her husband pledged to step down from the Clinton Foundation AND they will not be taking foreign donations anymore.

I think it's probably what you yourself alluded to, he likely overstated his net worth and now there is a serious ego thing at stake.

It's kind of cute. Whatever.

[blackjack21]

^ Second article is satire and calls everyone who supports him stupid. And you think that's evidence that he'll win? An article that calls your movement full of idiots who are addicted to television. Great.

Just reminding people that he hasn't released his tax returns, because he probably isn't a billionaire.

Yes. The problem with people who are addicted to an IQ-based self-esteem is that they fail to realize that average voter IQ is probably 100 or less. Making fun of people with low IQ is as sporting as making fun of the poor or homeless. Underlying that satire is real fear (like SpecialOlympian's "lol" reaction formation).

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump was only worth 1/3rd of what he says. Just like banks claim to have billions of assets "under management", real estate types usually do not include liabilities when speaking of total assets. Further, they usually discount the value of assets for tax purposes.

The NAMBLA and Russia stuff are unserious. Keep in mind Hillary signed off on a Russian-controlled company owning US uranium mines.

How many lol/rotfl's does that get?

You can criticize Trump University, but not if you're husband magically gets $500k speaking fees everytime you use your capacity as SoS to benefit a donor to your charitable foundation.

People who live in glass houses...

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Yes. The problem with people who are addicted to an IQ-based self-esteem is that they fail to realize that average voter IQ is probably 100 or less. Making fun of people with low IQ is as sporting as making fun of the poor or homeless. Underlying that satire is real fear (like SpecialOlympian's "lol" reaction formation).

IQ tests are normalized so having an IQ below 100 really means nothing at all. At least not to me. I've met plenty of low-IQ people with enough compassion for others not to vote Trump. And plenty of low IQ people that don't watch TV all day. And plenty of highly intelligent people willing to vote for Trump because of their mistaken views on Hillary. Really I think the article was stupid, even if it was anti-Trump. Satire should be funny and it did not come off as funny at all.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump was only worth 1/3rd of what he says. Just like banks claim to have billions of assets "under management", real estate types usually do not include liabilities when speaking of total assets. Further, they usually discount the value of assets for tax purposes.

I agree, and the fact is that as soon as Trump starts selling off his assets they start being worth less and less. Assets are only worth as much as you can get for them if you have the ability to walk away from any deal.

The NAMBLA and Russia stuff are unserious.

Meh, the Russia stuff is actually very serious. The NAMBLA stuff, not so much.

Keep in mind Hillary signed off on a Russian-controlled company owning US uranium mines.

Read this. Some relevant portions:

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

The company in question, Uranium One, does have mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. It churns out a smaller portion of actual uranium produced in the United States (11 percent in 2014), according to Oilprice.com.

But that’s less cause for alarm than Trump is suggesting.

For one, the United States doesn’t actually produce all that much uranium (about 2 percent in 2015) and is actually a net importer of the chemical, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

Trump is also wrong that Clinton alone allowed the transfer.

The Kremlin’s 2010 purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.

While it’s conceivable Clinton advocated for the deal, the author of Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer himself admitted that he doesn’t have "direct evidence" proving Clinton played a part. The State Department’s principal representative on the committee, Jose Fernandez, told Time that Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Why on earth would the United States allow the transfer of a uranium company?

As others, including a New York Times’ investigation, have explained, the United States was still seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal. But at the end of the day, the Russian deal wasn’t that big.

Russia’s purchase of the company "had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire," said Lewis. "That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC ) approved it."

There's more in there if you're curious. All this to say, it's just a smear. I'm sure there will be more smears I have to dispell but I hope I don't have to do it again for this particular claim.

You can criticize Trump University, but not if you're husband magically gets $500k speaking fees everytime you use your capacity as SoS to benefit a donor to your charitable foundation.

Nah dawg, there is absolutely no proof of that or reason to believe that.

[Hong Wu]

Politifact writes things to benefit "the party" (the DNC): https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10838

Meanwhile on CNN:

[Hong Wu]

http://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/unruh/poll.cfm -- USC / LA Times tracking poll has Trump up by 3. I know it polls the same people over and over, somehow this is less reliable than polling a randomly selected slice of the population that oversamples Democrats in a cycle when the right is more enthused.

[Zagadka]

https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/770389764977598465

Anyone who can elaborate?

[Hong Wu]

Anyone who can elaborate?

If you google him you'll see this guy is all in for Trump, after Beyonce, defending the police, everything. He also spoke at the RNC. The left is seemingly out of ideas at this point on issues like lower-income black communities, their talking points right now are "let the drug dealers out of jail and send them back" (as if that'll help) or "send the Syrians there" (Bill Clinton). Sure, in places like NY they can usher them all out and pat themselves on the back but they still have to be somewhere.

[blackjack21]

https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/770389764977598465

http://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/unruh/poll.cfm -- USC / LA Times tracking poll has Trump up by 3. I know it polls the same people over and over, somehow this is less reliable than polling a randomly selected slice of the population that oversamples Democrats in a cycle when the right is more enthused.

Yes, I saw that poll. Daily polls aren't as reliable as 3-day average polls, but they do point to trends. The polls are not just oversampling Democrats, but they've attributed undecided voters to Clinton by a 2:1 margin in a year where establisment pols are massive unpopular.

It's now getting comical as Paul Wolfowitz endorses Hillary Clinton.

[ArtAllm]

It's now getting comical as Paul Wolfowitz endorses Hillary Clinton.

This obscene picture illustrates the American political process.

[colliric]

Yes, I saw that poll. Daily polls aren't as reliable as 3-day average polls, but they do point to trends. The polls are not just oversampling Democrats, but they've attributed undecided voters to Clinton by a 2:1 margin in a year where establisment pols are massive unpopular.

It's now getting comical as Paul Wolfowitz endorses Hillary Clinton.

His RCP deficit is down to -5 flat for the first time since DNC, Reuters and one other older poll keep it arbitrarily above -5 for Clinton. Now he's definitely leading the LA Times poll and the trend is steeply upwards so his lead will likely increase in that poll. A trend to Trump is happening, hopefully he can sustain it.

[ArtAllm]

Yes, I saw that poll. Daily polls aren't as reliable as 3-day average polls, but they do point to trends. The polls are not just oversampling Democrats, but they've attributed undecided voters to Clinton by a 2:1 margin in a year where establisment pols are massive unpopular.

Why should anybody be honest in a poll?
If somebody calls you, you are not anonimous any more, your identity is exposed.

If Trump was not demonised in the controlled media, then people would be honest and say what they think about Trump.

But if an atmosphere of hate is created, if Trump is associated with Hitler/Devil, then many people will be afraid to say the truth.

Most of them will say that they hate Trump, because this is what the controlled media wants them to say!

That may even have consequences, if you do not say that the "New Hitler" is a bad guy, then you may be kicked out of your job or face other consequences.

So it is understandable that answering a phone call, when your identity is exposed, and actually voting in a secret ballot are two different things.

[SpecialOlympian]

Luckily I, a Trump supporter, can read the real intent behind these skewed polls, and it turns out my candidate is actually winning!

lol

[blackjack21]

There is conflicting evidence. Trump rallies are packed. Hillary's are not. Hillary goes on Jimmy Kimmel and his ratings go down. Trump, by contrast, typically improves ratings. Not only did he improve primary voter turnout, but he improved debate ratings too. People will record football and watch the debates, because there is a remote chance he might call Hillary a cunt. Nobody wants to misss that.

[SpecialOlympian]

People stare at Trump's campaign like the flaming car wreck that it is, and this is proof that he's massively undersupported in polls.

There's a difference between being a spectacle and being electable.

[Drlee]

You can criticize Trump University, but not if you're husband magically gets $500k speaking fees everytime you use your capacity as SoS to benefit a donor to your charitable foundation

Really blackjack. This is bullshit even by your standards. Her husband was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Her being SOS meant less than nothing. Then, oh by the way, Trump University was a deliberate theft. If it was run by anyone but Trump that person would be in jail for fraud.

Go troll somewhere else Blackjack. That or act your age. You have passed the absurd. Please stop with the comparative morality play. It is childish and shallow.

[blackjack21]

You are ignoring the obvious. W made between $20-30m since he left office at between $100-175k per speech. Clinton did better, but he had a foundation and a US Senator for a wife. When she moved over to SoS, his speaking fees spiked. Hillary, whose record at SoS is abysmal cleared $20m in speaking fees in 2 years--everyone knowing she'd run for president. Now W was president. How does she make that much while spawning Isis? I'm sure you are thrilled with the Wolfowitz endorsement.

[Godstud]

What's your fucking point?

Last week, Politico reported that former President George W. Bush makes between $100,000 and $175,000 for every speech he gives and that he has given at least 200 speeches since leaving office in 2009. A bit of simple math translates that activity into more than $30 million for the former president in speech fees alone. Compare that to the relatively paltry $400,000 a president makes a year while in office, and you can see why presidents look forward to their retirement.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/politicia ... -speeches/

[Donna]

Mr. Bush shouldn't be doing it either.

But he isn't running for president this cycle