Donald Trump for President of the USA

Not sure you'd get away with calling her husband a rapist, if I'm honest.

He's been a naughty boy over the years but he's never raped anyone that we know of.

I'm emailing them a link to your comment.

You're going to get sued.

Boggersbelief wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:I can't stand either of them, but you're buying far too much into Trumps propaganda if you think she's the most corrupt person on the planet. Go on though, spit some details out Boggers.

She's being investigated by the FBI as we speak...
She defends a rapist

What has she actually done of note in her career?

It's not trump propaganda it's cold, hard facts

It's a fact that Bill Clinton is a rapist??? 

Things she's done of note? I don't know much about her and as I said I'm no fan but she's served in office for a long time (40 year career isn't it?) and during that time has done a hell of a lot for womens rights and public healthcare in the US. Those two things cannot be denied.

If she is as evil and crooked as many people suggest, why are the Obama's giving her so much support?

Yes, I know what Michelle said about her in the past.

She's clearly got a bit of an edge and can be quite hard when appropriate but so have 99.9% of the most successful people on the planet.

The difference between her and the other clown is she's not a narcissistic, racist lunatic who sees everybody else she comes into contact with as being inferior to herself and quite openly says so.

I know which one I'd rather have in possession of the nuclear codes.

Cajunboy wrote:If she is as evil and crooked as many people suggest, why are the Obama's giving her so much support?

Because the alternative is Donald Trump, and she is also the Democratic Party candidate as opposed to the Republican party nominee.
who if elected is going to change the tax laws to benefit wealthy property developers who are heavily leveraged with debt so not only do they not pay tax on money borrowed but they actually pay negative tax on it.
Wealthy property developers who are heavily leveraged with debt would benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Can anyone think of anyone who might fit the criteria in bold.

bwfc1874 wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Lets be honest, if this is America's best, the shit is going to fly whoever gets in.
My own thoughts are that with the checks and balances, Trump might grow into the post, whereas Clinton has a proven past that isn't good, and she's already declared how she's going to ruin the country.

Sorry going to have to ask you to expand again here Glos! What's in her proven past? And how has she declared she'll ruin the country?

I have friends in America, who send me all sorts of items. They are staunch Republicans, so some of there stuff can be a bit biased, but having said that, they are not the only source of some of the topics.
As you will be aware, the candidates are only allowed a certain amount of funds to campaign, (which usually gets worked around). However,  it is 'rumoured' that Clintons campaign is drawing funds from the Clinton Foundation, which allows her to pull in all sorts of backing, including the majority of the media organisations. One argument levelled against the foundation is that both her and Bill, over the years, have done 'favours' for certain people, criminals included, who then make donations to the foundation. This includes presidential pardons for people who are convicted criminals/drug dealers. As a matter of interest, their personal fortune, (can't remember exactly), went from aproximately 12m dollars to something like 45m dollars (all figures approximate), during his presidency, and her Senatorship. My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation is now under investigation.
Poplicies include doing away with all fossil fuels, as well as fracking, which may sound good, but it immediately ruins the lives of many people. Rumour has it that she is building up her interests in alternative power systems.
She lied about the timings and her instructions throughout the siege of the embassy in Bhengazi, when the American Ambassador was dragged into the stree and beaten to death. When pushed for an answer during an investigative tribunal, declared 'what does it matter now'?
I don't believe she made any real progress in any of the offices she held, and indeed is known for having spent/wasted tens of millions of dollars.
There are lots of documented instances of her ineptitude over the years, and it wouldn't be too hard to find it. She appears to have been involved in many shady deals, even as a member of the government.
As for doing things for American women, what would that be exactly ?
Today, Susan Sarandon said, during an interview, that she wouldn't vote for Clinton, because, 'I don't vote with my vagina'.  Having said that, she said she wouldn't vote for Trump either 

I like him I hope he wins just so I can see that old bags face.

Lard Lad wrote:I like him I hope he wins just so I can see that old bags face.

AD, ya cunt!

How's it going?

It's goin great Bread ya ol cock gobbler.

gloswhite wrote:As you will be aware, the candidates are only allowed a certain amount of funds to campaign, (which usually gets worked around). However,  it is 'rumoured' that Clintons campaign is drawing funds from the Clinton Foundation, which allows her to pull in all sorts of backing, including the majority of the media organisations. 

Although the Clinton foundation is certainly shady, have you looked into Trump's namesake charity at all? He too is under investigation, for essentially using the charity as a tax evasion device, and spending donations rather than giving them to charity (one of which included the sale of a $20,000 portrait of Donald himself).

gloswhite wrote:sOne argument levelled against the foundation is that both her and Bill, over the years, have done 'favours' for certain people, criminals included, who then make donations to the foundation. This includes presidential pardons for people who are convicted criminals/drug dealers. As a matter of interest, their personal fortune, (can't remember exactly), went from aproximately 12m dollars to something like 45m dollars (all figures approximate), during his presidency, and her Senatorship. My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation is now under investigation.

This is where I start to think your Republican friends might have been misled, there's no evidence to suggest criminals and drug dealers have received presidential pardons off the back of donations, this is classic Republican conspiracy theory. Obama has started to undo the damaging effects of Reagan's war on drugs by offering presidential pardons to detainees who have spent most of their lives in prison for relatively minor drug offences. Republicans hate this - firstly it's Obama doing it, secondly it's undoing Reagan's work and thirdly it involves the word drugs. The policy is a necessity though, prisons are over crowded in the US as they are here and the so called 'war on drugs' has been a monumental failure, attitudes are changing towards how we approach drug crime in the West, long may that continue.

gloswhite wrote:Poplicies include doing away with all fossil fuels, as well as fracking, which may sound good, but it immediately ruins the lives of many people. Rumour has it that she is building up her interests in alternative power systems.

These just don't sound good, these are good. America has finally started to come into line with the rest of the world (apart from Russia) in trying to reduce it's carbon emissions and doing something about climate change. 40% of American's still don't believe climate change is genuine, Fox News and the Repbulican party can take a big slice of the blame for that. Something has to be done before it's too late and radical policies to cut fossil fuels is essential, any rational person has to look at the scientific evidence and agree.



I'm not a fan of hers as I've said, but she's done three things well throughout her career, and that's championing gender equality from a position of power, push climate change reform and promote state healthcare. Three very important causes that 40 years ago when she began will largely have been laughed at, the way society is going now though she's clearly come out on the right side of history.

There are questions over Clinton yes. But Trump has had even more questions over him all of which have been emphatically answered, he's guilty as charged, and what's even worse that a man running for President could have got this far barely even mentioning policy.

bwfc1874 wrote:

gloswhite wrote:As you will be aware, the candidates are only allowed a certain amount of funds to campaign, (which usually gets worked around). However,  it is 'rumoured' that Clintons campaign is drawing funds from the Clinton Foundation, which allows her to pull in all sorts of backing, including the majority of the media organisations. 

Although the Clinton foundation is certainly shady, have you looked into Trump's namesake charity at all? He too is under investigation, for essentially using the charity as a tax evasion device, and spending donations rather than giving them to charity (one of which included the sale of a $20,000 portrait of Donald himself).

gloswhite wrote:sOne argument levelled against the foundation is that both her and Bill, over the years, have done 'favours' for certain people, criminals included, who then make donations to the foundation. This includes presidential pardons for people who are convicted criminals/drug dealers. As a matter of interest, their personal fortune, (can't remember exactly), went from aproximately 12m dollars to something like 45m dollars (all figures approximate), during his presidency, and her Senatorship. My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation is now under investigation.

This is where I start to think your Republican friends might have been misled, there's no evidence to suggest criminals and drug dealers have received presidential pardons off the back of donations, this is classic Republican conspiracy theory. Obama has started to undo the damaging effects of Reagan's war on drugs by offering presidential pardons to detainees who have spent most of their lives in prison for relatively minor drug offences. Republicans hate this - firstly it's Obama doing it, secondly it's undoing Reagan's work and thirdly it involves the word drugs. The policy is a necessity though, prisons are over crowded in the US as they are here and the so called 'war on drugs' has been a monumental failure, attitudes are changing towards how we approach drug crime in the West, long may that continue.

gloswhite wrote:Poplicies include doing away with all fossil fuels, as well as fracking, which may sound good, but it immediately ruins the lives of many people. Rumour has it that she is building up her interests in alternative power systems.

These just don't sound good, these are good. America has finally started to come into line with the rest of the world (apart from Russia) in trying to reduce it's carbon emissions and doing something about climate change. 40% of American's still don't believe climate change is genuine, Fox News and the Repbulican party can take a big slice of the blame for that. Something has to be done before it's too late and radical policies to cut fossil fuels is essential, any rational person has to look at the scientific evidence and agree.



I'm not a fan of hers as I've said, but she's done three things well throughout her career, and that's championing gender equality from a position of power, push climate change reform and promote state healthcare. Three very important causes that 40 years ago when she began will largely have been laughed at, the way society is going now though she's clearly come out on the right side of history.

There are questions over Clinton yes. But Trump has had even more questions over him all of which have been emphatically answered, he's guilty as charged, and what's even worse that a man running for President could have got this far barely even mentioning policy.

I knew this would happen. The articles I was sent had names, examples, etc, but as there were so many, I binned them after I read them, otherwise I would be able to back up my comments with details.
I don't agree with your comments per se, although obviously I can't ignore some of the points you make, as you did with my Benghazi comments. 
The bottom line for me is that she has a proven poor record whilst in the employ of her country, showing poor decision making, and supported by a very large dose of dishonesty. An example being that she wants a no-fly zone over Aleppo, presumably policed by American planes. Everyone else says its too dangerous, as it will put American fighters in direct conflict with the Russians, and she's still saying it. She is more likely to start major conflicts than Trump, especially with such naive thinking.
Trump has pushed and bullied his way to where he is, and has some bad character flaws, but one thing he hasn't done is hide behind others when wasting resources, and making errors. Call it arrogance or stupidity, but he stands up to be counted.
Having said that, lets be honest, either choice is a liability.

Sorry Glos id meant to say you're spot on about Benghazi. I don't know a huge amount about it but her deposition was pretty damming.

Can't agree about Trumo standing up to be counted, any chance of him revealing his tax returns? He claims he's under audit which has been disputed by the IRS anyway but also makes absolutely no sense as he could still reveal his tax returns. He hides behind blatant lies and continues to grow by feeding into the worst of American bigotry. Can't remember who said it before Brexit but the same applies to this election. Not every Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are Trump supporters.

I think when it comes to money, people who work at their level know all the legal, and not so legal, methods of acquiring what they want, and how to keep the law at arms length. Its almost expected of them. This applies to the UK hierarchy as well, unfortunately. You may be right about his accountability, but I would say that his decisionss carried far less risk/cost to the country than Clinton's, yet she still made them.
To be honest, I'll be glad when its all over, but then we move on to where the President/Senate/Congress cannot agree anything, and you get instances (as happened during the Obama presidency) where all the public employees are sent home due to blocking of budgets. Also, with Clinton, you will get another 4 years, more or less, of the same poor administration as Obama, and I feel that the vast majority of problems we have nowadays, in the Middle East, are down to his ineffective foreign policy. (but thats another story)

gloswhite wrote:... the same poor administration as Obama, and I feel that the vast majority of problems we have nowadays, in the Middle East, are down to his ineffective foreign policy.

I feel that you are seriously underestimating the damage Bush (and his poodle Blair) did.

IWhat would you have had Obama do Glos? Results of occupying Middle Eastern countries haven't been great.

More to the point what exactly is Trumps plan? Aside from 'beat the heck out of ISIS' - which is not a plan.

bwfc1874 wrote:More to the point what exactly is Trumps plan? Aside from 'beat the heck out of ISIS' - which is not a plan.

Of course it's a plan.

Obama was weak in his policies, pulling out American support, and letting different factions step into the vacuum.  I don't think we need to go down this road, because if you can't see that his policies are poor, then you are deluding yourself. The Arabs are running riot amongst themselves, with no guidance, Putin is pushing more than he ever has, because he knows America is weak, and respect for America must be at an all-time low, or near to it. Their own infrastructure is looking pretty damaged, what with Obamacare, and the admittance of as many people as can get across the border. They're not illegals, but 'undocumented' citizens, who can claim all the benefits available to Americans. Its a mess over there, and Clinton intends to carry on in the same vein.

All good Glos but you haven't answered the question, what should Obama have done? The chaos in the Middle East could quite as easily be blamed upon Bush's legacy.

Why exactly do the Arabs need to be controlled by the West as you suggest? Since Napoleon the same fuck up has been made whereby we try and impose our values on a region that does not care for them and to what end?

I didn't say the Arabs should be 'controlled' by anyone. 
America was the cushion between many of the factions, and with Obama's withdrawal and indecision, they started knocking lumps out of each other, very quickly degenerating to war. some people would look on the intervention by the West as a calming factor, but as we all know, no follow up, and a lack of foresight contributed greatly to the mess over there now. The withdrawal of the US has made it much worse, and it'll take generations until it is back to any form of normality. Running away won't help anyone.

gloswhite wrote:I didn't say the Arabs should be 'controlled' by anyone. 
America was the cushion between many of the factions, and with Obama's withdrawal and indecision, they started knocking lumps out of each other, very quickly degenerating to war. some people would look on the intervention by the West as a calming factor, but as we all know, no follow up, and a lack of foresight contributed greatly to the mess over there now. The withdrawal of the US has made it much worse, and it'll take generations until it is back to any form of normality. Running away won't help anyone.

So the attack on Iraq by Bush in 2003 was a "calming factor"?