Donald Trump
Comments
-
0
-
-
-
So as I understand it, she's getting heat because the charity which she heads takes money from disreputable firms who would have an interest in currying favour with Clinton?
And the NYT can't establish a firm indisputable link to the firms donating and getting a favourable US decision (which involved Hillary) but it doesn't look great?
Yeah. It's not great.
But then, from a charitable perspective, why would you turn down money, and why didn't the FBI find anything?
I find it odd that you place this so much higher than other things, particularly given the general state of party funding in the US anyway. That's how US works: money talks. Is the issue that it's charity rather than a direct donation?
This stuff happens a lot in the UK.
In the industry I know well myself for example:
I'd suggest the favourable breaks vitol and their boss Ian Taylor get are not coincidental given his hefty donations to the Tory party and they got put first in the queue to supply the Libyan rebels with oil which was lucrative for them.
It's not great, but to hold that against Hilary but not others strikes me as odd.0 -
Using your position as Sec of State to facilitate deals whereby uranium rights are sold to foreign, unfriendly governments in return for donations to your foundation is a little bit more than odd.0
-
Clinton wants a no-fly zone over Syria. Much as the Syrians' plight, I really don't want WW3 to break out over that conflict. Face it Rick, she's a massive, massive danger to world peace (possibly even more so than Trump). Even US military men are saying that imposing a no-fly zone against the Russians would be insane. Depending on how much she listens to people who actually have a clue what they're talking about, we could be weeks away from WW3.
Also, she voted for the Iraq War. That in itself should have prevented her from becoming the Democrats' candidate.0 -
A no fly zone in Syria is not going to cause another world war.
And yes, she's certainly very interventionist.
It's not the place for it but arguably Russia's involvement can be in large part attributed to Obama's policy to avoid it entirely. Perhaps that's the right thing perhaps it's not. When you stop playing world police, someone else will start.
Are you so worried about world war 3 that you want a Trump victory Finch?0 -
Clinton has policies or at least talks about them. Trump just spits out rubbish without thought.through policies. Clinton seems to have a bit of a technocratic approach based on actually considering the issues. Trump has no sign of considering anything beyond getting into the Whitehouse.
No fly zone? Have you considered she might be considering working with Russia on such a zone? Does it automatically mean Russian and American planes in opposition? WW3 my @rse! Not likely at all. Sounds like a Trump idea. You work for his campaign team Finchy?
Sorry, but as.much as I hate the idea of another Clinton in.the Whitehouse it at least doesn't scare me. Trump as president actually scares.me. Not least because I don't know what he is really about. What is he going to be like as a president of usa? Is his act going to change to some kind of sensible, sane even? If he's just as fruit loop will the houses be able and willing to temper his policies? Republican Trump supported blindly by republican dominated houses is a scary prospect. At least you're guaranteed the houses will temper Clinton's legislative policies. Checks and balances for her but for Trump?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:A no fly zone in Syria is not going to cause another world war.
You seem very sure of that Rick. How can you state with such certainty that this isn't going to lead to a direct Russia v USA confrontation? If the Russians shoot down an American plane, what's the next step? Did you read the article I linked to? That's from the (very) pro-Clinton Guardian by the way. If even American military and foreign top brass are so concerned about this, why do you brush off the possibility so lightly? Don't tell me you don't trust the "experts"
.Rick Chasey wrote:And yes, she's certainly very interventionist.
It's not the place for it but arguably Russia's involvement can be in large part attributed to Obama's policy to avoid it entirely. Perhaps that's the right thing perhaps it's not. When you stop playing world police, someone else will start.
But the Americans aren't being the world policeman. The police are meant to apply the law without bias or favour. The USA is just asserting its own interests, as is Russia, soon to be joined by China.Rick Chasey wrote:Are you so worried about world war 3 that you want a Trump victory Finch?
I don't know. I honestly can't say which of these candidates I want to lose most. As I've stated before, I think that Trump will be completely isolated the moment he steps into the White House. It's one thing promising e.g. to send all the illegal immigrants from Mexico home while you're on the campaign trail, it's quite another to get the funds to do it from Congress and the cooperation of the states needed to make it happen.
As far as I'm concerned, this US elections can be summed up as follows
versus
0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:No fly zone? Have you considered she might be considering working with Russia on such a zone? Does it automatically mean Russian and American planes in opposition? WW3 my @rse! Not likely at all. Sounds like a Trump idea. You work for his campaign team Finchy?
Nope, she's considering imposing the no-fly zone on Russia Check out the link I posted. It's from a pro-Clinton newspaper, not a pro-Trump newspaper.0 -
I'll happily be a bookmaker for an emotional hedge for you if you want.
You set the timeline and I'll set you the odds.0 -
Slightly off piste.
I caught Bill Maher's, Real Time on Sky Atlantic last night, made by HBO. It amounted to a party political broadcast on behalf of HC, complete with a 5 or 10 min sycophantic interview with Obama endorsing her.
We often talk of media bias over here, but this was off the scale.0 -
Whichever one gets elected, I think the secret service will have its work cut out making sure they survive the four years.0
-
...depends how hard they try ;-)0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I'll happily be a bookmaker for an emotional hedge for you if you want.
You set the timeline and I'll set you the odds.
Nah. If I win, we both lose. Anyway, I'm not saying it's a certainty, I'm saying it's a massive risk. As I say, what makes you so sure of your own position? Why is it that on the EU thread, you spent a lot of time defending experts and the need to listen to them, but now experts are criticising Clinton's foreign policy you reject their views out of hand?0 -
mrfpb wrote:
Hillary Clinton has not been a private citizen or business woman for decades. She has a massive personal staff which would include IT experts who know about cyber security. Her personal e-mail will be firewalled possibly more than the emails of our employers. She is also, allegedly, not the first Secretary of State to manage her personal and work emails in this way, just the first to go on and run for President.
It is just possible that people over-estimate how much attention her staff paid to email retention and security. Which is probably shocking in itself.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... fbi-214307
Taken from the released interviews by the FBI.
"She has, according to multiple aides, never even learned how to use a desktop computer."
"Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age. Reading the FBI’s interviews, Clinton’s team hardly seems organized enough to mount any sort of sinister cover-up. There’s scant oversight of the way Clinton communicated, and little thought given to how her files might be preserved for posterity—MacBook laptops with outdated archives are FedExed across the country, cutting-edge iPads are discarded quickly and BlackBerry devices are rejected for being “too heavy” as staff scrambled to cater to Clinton’s whims."0 -
Trump doesn't use a computer either, commentators were saying yesterday that he was complaining to staff about spending money on social media advertising 'because he never gets to see it, he doesn't believe it can work'All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
If Trump gets in it will probably be the secret service pulling the trigger!Ballysmate wrote:Whichever one gets elected, I think the secret service will have its work cut out making sure they survive the four years.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Oh! In that case I retract. If it's from an online newspaper article then it must be Clinton's policy. I hadn't realised it was that certain. Now you've really got me worried.finchy wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:No fly zone? Have you considered she might be considering working with Russia on such a zone? Does it automatically mean Russian and American planes in opposition? WW3 my @rse! Not likely at all. Sounds like a Trump idea. You work for his campaign team Finchy?
Nope, she's considering imposing the no-fly zone on Russia Check out the link I posted. It's from a pro-Clinton newspaper, not a pro-Trump newspaper.0 -
http://news.sky.com/story/trump-team-gu ... t-10648098
nice to see them all cr@p themselves when someone gets too close to Trump with a threatening sign.
that's why you need those guns so you can all scare the sh!t out of each other0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:
Oh! In that case I retract. If it's from an online newspaper article then it must be Clinton's policy. I hadn't realised it was that certain. Now you've really got me worried.finchy wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:No fly zone? Have you considered she might be considering working with Russia on such a zone? Does it automatically mean Russian and American planes in opposition? WW3 my @rse! Not likely at all. Sounds like a Trump idea. You work for his campaign team Finchy?
Nope, she's considering imposing the no-fly zone on Russia Check out the link I posted. It's from a pro-Clinton newspaper, not a pro-Trump newspaper.
Go and read the story. Or even better, do a google search, there's plenty of information out there. It's her stated policy. She has defended it in presidential debates.0 -
Dunno. I was up at 05:30, switched the BBC news on and Trump was mid flow rabbiting on. Made breakfast and packed lunch, went back and he was still there. Changed channel. Continuously flipped channels as he was still there. Changed back at 05:55 and he was thankfully gone. I don't know what time he started but someone at the BBC felt is was okay to give him at least 1/2 hour live to prattle on.Ballysmate wrote:Slightly off piste.
I caught Bill Maher's, Real Time on Sky Atlantic last night, made by HBO. It amounted to a party political broadcast on behalf of HC, complete with a 5 or 10 min sycophantic interview with Obama endorsing her.
We often talk of media bias over here, but this was off the scale.
I really don't know what to make of that.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
"We're facing the possibility of the worst President in US history. Or one that's even worse"
Somebody on HIGNFY
Sums it all up really0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Slightly off piste.
I caught Bill Maher's, Real Time on Sky Atlantic last night, made by HBO. It amounted to a party political broadcast on behalf of HC, complete with a 5 or 10 min sycophantic interview with Obama endorsing her.
We often talk of media bias over here, but this was off the scale.
Bill Maher is famously left wing in the US. And a lefty shock jock at that.
That's the point of the program. It makes no pretence to be balanced. He openly hates vast swathes of the US who opposed gun control and abortions.
That's also why it's on HBO.0 -
Well I'm not staying up to watch the coverage. Guess we'll know by time we get up in the morning..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Maybe they knew who the next president was going to be. :shock:PBlakeney wrote:
Dunno. I was up at 05:30, switched the BBC news on and Trump was mid flow rabbiting on. Made breakfast and packed lunch, went back and he was still there. Changed channel. Continuously flipped channels as he was still there. Changed back at 05:55 and he was thankfully gone. I don't know what time he started but someone at the BBC felt is was okay to give him at least 1/2 hour live to prattle on.Ballysmate wrote:Slightly off piste.
I caught Bill Maher's, Real Time on Sky Atlantic last night, made by HBO. It amounted to a party political broadcast on behalf of HC, complete with a 5 or 10 min sycophantic interview with Obama endorsing her.
We often talk of media bias over here, but this was off the scale.
I really don't know what to make of that.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Confirming what I always suspected about the majority of Americans.
Goes to show just how bad a candidate Clinton was though.0
