Trump

[heironymouspasparagus]

I agree...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-cuba-embargo-change-position-did/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/22/hillary-clinton-flip-flop-flips-on-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/donald-trumps-largely-accurate-about-clintons-past/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTmN2wbJ0A

Ahhh...but those were evolutionary changes in philosophy and ideas.  Not paid for with cash. 

[erfalf]

Ahhh...but those were evolutionary changes in philosophy and ideas.  Not paid for with cash. 

Sure they were...

Politicians (apparently Democrats) have never been self serving. While there may not have been a direct monetary contribution attached (A pays B) there is a monetary benefit to being elected. So yes, she is doing it to get paid.

[Conan71]

I'm sure Bill Clinton has done bad things, I'm unsure about how bad. I would not vote for him today, but he's not running.

No, but the woman who assisted in covering up his behavior is running.  She has publicly said: "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported." yet her behavior indicates otherwise when it stands in the way of her or her husband's aspirations.  That troubles me and is not the sort of moral code which seems presidential to me.

Most of the women that Clinton was attacked about were women he cheated with. I am positive that happened over and over. What was proven in court was that he cheated. I think he probably groped some women. I have large doubts about the cases accusing him of rape. It's hard to tell because the same people behind the women accusing him in most cases are the same people that pushed stupid charges like the killing of Vince Foster.

I count seven women out of 17 in this article where there might be some veracity.  Two were creeped out and the balance claim to have had on-going affairs or consensual one-night stands.  Juanita Broaddrick, one of his rape victims has always claimed Hillary was aware and covered up this incident for Bill and outright attacked her in public.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-clinton-sexual-sex-assault-misconduct-rape-allegations-accusers-affairs-names-list-women-mistresses-scandals-photos-pictures/2/

(the source here is of no consequence to me, I have no clue if it is a left, neutral, or right leaning publication this is a compendium of accounts published in other places over the years.)

Trump is another thing. None of the women accusing him are for simple affairs, though I am sure there many of those as well. His cheating has been proven in court, just like Bill's. I am reasonably certain of his groping as well, just like with Bill. Unlike Bill I am also reasonably certain he is guilty of rape. Read the original accusations from Ivana from their divorce, it's really scary. I know she recanted, but that was required as part of the settlement and they have kids, so I get why she recanted. The accusation in her deposition is more believable to me than her pulling it back in the settlement. So I am pretty certain he's guilt of that.

The thing that has really pushed me over the edge lately is the stuff with children. His going backstage at Miss Teen USA and his now two documented cases of ogling children and telling them he would date them in a few years. It's very sick.

Add the groping, the rape, the pedophiliac behavior on top his bullying, paranoia, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, sexism and then his fraudulent "University" and "Foundation" and his ugly, ugly business dealings and his demonstrably lying most of the time. I mean that, most of what comes out of his mouth is a lie, and often pointlessly so. He's a sick, sick man in ways Bill could never approach. And again, Bill isn't running.

Trump is a horrible human and candidate, no argument there.  Why would you attribute less veracity to the accounts of the accusers HRC marginalized for her husband and personally attacked than Trump's accusers?

With celebrities and people in power, there is no doubt some claims can be dubious- people trying to either get their 15 minutes, money or both.  But in this day and age, we are told we must take every accusation of sexual assault seriously and respect the alleged victim.

We haven't even delved into the Clinton's questionable family foundation nor her two-faced stances on the issues- her "public" stance and "private" stance.  Bernie Sanders did a bang up job of calling out her questionable relationships with Wall St. and what he felt would create conflicts of interest if she were elected.  She's also proven herself to be a very dishonest and hypocritical person.

I have valid moral objections to voting for either HRC or DJT.

[swake]

No, but the woman who assisted in covering up his behavior is running.  She has publicly said: "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported." yet her behavior indicates otherwise when it stands in the way of her or her husband's aspirations.  That troubles me and is not the sort of moral code which seems presidential to me.

I count seven women out of 17 in this article where there might be some veracity.  Two were creeped out and the balance claim to have had on-going affairs or consensual one-night stands.  Juanita Broaddrick, one of his rape victims has always claimed Hillary was aware and covered up this incident for Bill and outright attacked her in public.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-clinton-sexual-sex-assault-misconduct-rape-allegations-accusers-affairs-names-list-women-mistresses-scandals-photos-pictures/2/

(the source here is of no consequence to me, I have no clue if it is a left, neutral, or right leaning publication this is a compendium of accounts published in other places over the years.)

Trump is a horrible human and candidate, no argument there.  Why would you attribute less veracity to the accounts of the accusers HRC marginalized for her husband and personally attacked than Trump's accusers?

With celebrities and people in power, there is no doubt some claims can be dubious- people trying to either get their 15 minutes, money or both.  But in this day and age, we are told we must take every accusation of sexual assault seriously and respect the alleged victim.

We haven't even delved into the Clinton's questionable family foundation nor her two-faced stances on the issues- her "public" stance and "private" stance.  Bernie Sanders did a bang up job of calling out her questionable relationships with Wall St. and what he felt would create conflicts of interest if she were elected.  She's also proven herself to be a very dishonest and hypocritical person.

I have valid moral objections to voting for either HRC or DJT.

I'm going by the veracity of each case. I think it's most likely that the rape case from the 13 year old against Trump is false. I think it's possible the lawsuit against him for groping in the 90s was false as well. I don't think Ivana was lying. Read the case.

I have a hard time with Broaddrick case. There's no evidence Bill was even at the hotel where it happened, but there is a hole in his official schedule that morning. It's very possible she's telling the truth. There were rumors of the rape for years, she reportedly had told people at the time, but not her husband at the time who was abusive. One of the women she told was the wife of the state trooper that had a grudge against Clinton for years before and after. When Paula Jones' lawyers went to her in the 1990s she denied the rape in a deposition but years later with Ken Starr she changed her story and said she was raped. But Ken Starr didn't didn't prosecute Clinton on her charges and didn't find her credible enough to even use against Clinton in the Lewinsky case. I say this is probably not true, but it's very close and very possibly true. It's also possible that her husband hit her and the Clinton story was to cover up the husband hitting her. There were rumors of that as well. There's no evidence that if there really was a rape that Hillary knew at all, her statements about what Hillary said at the time don't sound at all like a threat like she claims. I'd say her accusations against Hillary are false. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I count seven women out of 17 in this article where there might be some veracity.  Two were creeped out and the balance claim to have had on-going affairs or consensual one-night stands.  Juanita Broaddrick, one of his rape victims has always claimed Hillary was aware and covered up this incident for Bill and outright attacked her in public.

This has some more questions.....


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html


Couple of them that are interesting - why would Broaddrick tell her boyfriend at the time about the rape, but not her abusive husband...?

And why voluntarily go to a Clinton fundraiser 3 weeks after the rape?

[swake]

Two more women have come forward this afternoon, one was a groping by Donald in a bar in the 1990s, the other was a contestant on The Apprentice season five.

[Townsend]

Two more women have come forward this afternoon, one was a groping by Donald in a bar in the 1990s, the other was a contestant on The Apprentice season five.

Maybe I should claim that I felt molestered by the many many seasons of apprentice.  "Reality" TV is donkey-in-a-glass and makes me feel bad-touched.

[Conan71]

Two more women have come forward this afternoon, one was a groping by Donald in a bar in the 1990s, the other was a contestant on The Apprentice season five.

What is truly scary about a Trump, Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton is when there is a pattern like this chances are there are many more women who simply are too embarrassed or ashamed to come forward or they've been paid hush money to cover it up.

Assuming the timing of this has all been carefully orchestrated by opponents of Trump, I don't think we've heard the worst yet.  I'm expecting another bombshell of some sort.

[swake]

What is truly scary about a Trump, Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton is when there is a pattern like this chances are there are many more women who simply are too embarrassed or ashamed to come forward or they've been paid hush money to cover it up.

Assuming the timing of this has all been carefully orchestrated by opponents of Trump, I don't think we've heard the worst yet.  I'm expecting another bombshell of some sort.

I don't think this is orchestrated. The tape apparently came out because Billy Bush was bragging about it's existence to the Today Show staff while they were all in Rio for the Olympics, the staff found the tape (NBC owns Access Hollywood) and sent it to NBCs lawyers for vetting, during the process someone leaked to Wapo. Once the tape was out and public knowledge, the women started to come out.

http://pagesix.com/2016/10/10/billy-bush-bragged-about-vulgar-trump-video-to-nbc-staffers/

Your point about there being others is of course true. These kinds of men have sick patterns, that usually get worse over time.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

If I'm reading this right, it sounds like Access Hollywood wanted Bush to get him on tape being sleazy. Claims are being made that if bush had told Trump to shut up that he would have been fired from Access Hollywood.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/billy-bush-lawyers-up-goes-938219

[Conan71]

I don't think this is orchestrated. The tape apparently came out because Billy Bush was bragging about it's existence to the Today Show staff while they were all in Rio for the Olympics, the staff found the tape (NBC owns Access Hollywood) and sent it to NBCs lawyers for vetting, during the process someone leaked to Wapo. Once the tape was out and public knowledge, the women started to come out.

http://pagesix.com/2016/10/10/billy-bush-bragged-about-vulgar-trump-video-to-nbc-staffers/

Your point about there being others is of course true. These kinds of men have sick patterns, that usually get worse over time.

It's been widely reported that NBC was sitting on this for awhile.  Much like the Wiki Leak email dumps coming out on behalf of Trump.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

So I did a little research on the discussion of Ford moving production of it's small cars, the Focus and C-Max, to Mexico from it's plant in Wayne Michigan.

True - This part is true. Ford is moving the production of the Focus and C-Max to Mexico.

False - This will mean the elimination of 4500 to 5000 jobs at the existing plant.

True - Ford has been in negotiation with the UAW and it's members to move the small car production, to re-tool and start production of the Ford Ranger mid-size pickup, as well as bringing back the Bronco to help improve CAFE standards and capitalize on the mid-size truck market sales they are losing out on to GM, Toyota and Nissan.

False - Trump will force Ford to not move production.

This is something that has been in the works since before Trump decided to run for office. Ford had to prove to the UAW that this would be a profitable move for both, and with the recent announcement of the production shift shows that Ford has reached an agreement with the UAW and it's workers.

Ford Motor Co. wants to resurrect its once-popular Ranger truck in North America and build the midsize pickup at the Michigan Assembly Plant, according to sources with knowledge of Ford's plans.

The Dearborn automaker has entered contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers with plans to bring the Ranger to the plant in Wayne in 2018, said the sources, who couldn't speak publicly because of the sensitive nature of the talks. They said the final decision is up for discussion in the talks now underway, and must be agreed to with the union and then Ford's board of directors.

The Ranger — which would replace the Focus and C-Max after production of those cars likely heads to Mexico — represents the kind of potentially high-profit, high-volume vehicle the union desires and likely would demand before members would ratify any contract proposal. The two sides must agree that the Ranger would be a good fit for the plant and its nearly 4,500 workers. For Ford, the pickup would mark the return to a small — but growing — midsize truck segment that would help it meet stricter fleet-wide fuel economy standards demanded by the federal government.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/08/25/ford-ranger/32373741/

What It Is: The return of the less-than-gigantic Ford pickup. Ford currently sells this mid-sizer just about everywhere except here. But that is about to change in response to the strong-selling Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon. The Ranger will also spawn a new Ford Bronco SUV, which will offer some competition to the Jeep Wrangler. Broncos should arrive in 2020 with a starting price of $30,000.


Powertrain: The only engine currently offered in the global Ranger that would likely come to the American market is the 3.2-liter five-cylinder diesel. It's available in the full-size Transit van and could help the Ranger take away the title of "most efficient pickup" from the 31-highway-mpg diesel Colorado/Canyon twins. Expect an EcoBoost four-cylinder as well as a naturally aspirated gas V-6 in the U.S. lineup. A diesel Bronco sounds pretty good to us, too.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2019-ford-ranger-25-cars-worth-waiting-for-feature

Ford believes that this is not a zero sum game in that the production of the Ranger and Bronco will be more profitable than producing the Focus and C-Max, and the "consummate business man" is either a liar or a fool, or hasn't bothered to do a little research.

[Ed W]

One news outlet over the weekend said that if Trump refuses to concede the election (assuming he loses, of course) it will provoke a constitutional crisis. I tried to find the basis for that statement but came up empty. He's already setting the stage to challenge the election legitimacy.

If he doesn't concede, what then? I'd assume the Electoral College would meet as usual and cast their votes. Is there any way for Trump to legally bar electors?

[cannon_fodder]

It could be a political crisis, but not a Constitutional crisis. There is no requirement that the loser concede, that would be a stupid system in nearly any game. "OU Beat K State by 30, but K State refused to concede so now we're not really sure how to mark that one down in the books!" Conceding is only an attempt to look gracious, mature, and like you care about the future of a representative republic. None of that bothers Trump.

Responsible parties will go along with the flow. Look - Democrats went along with it and we had a peaceful transition to Republicans of power in 2000  even though the Democrats actually won! The military will go along. The Courts. The vast majority of Congress. The "hated" GOP establishment. Foreign countries will recognize the winner, with the note able exceptions of North Korea and Russia.

So lets review what we are really talking about -

Right wing Donald Trump supporters might take up arms against their own government. Like those wackos in Oregon. Or the wackos in Nevada. Or those wackos arrested last week for plotting terror attacks against Muslims in Kansas. Or the wackos who shot police last week when the government tried to interfere with their "right" to beat their wives. The sovereign citizens, the "constitutionalists," the guys who really love 'Merica and waive that flag without having a clue what it stands for. We aren't afraid of an institutional crisis. We aren't afraid of logical people actually thinking the election is rigged (and that includes the vast majority of Republicans).

We are worried about right wing terrorists using this as an excuse to start sh!t because their irresponsible leader doesn't recognize the difference between angry twitter fights with celebrities at 3 AM, and angry tweets that undermine the Republic.  We are worried about people that go to Trump rallies and see 3500 other Trump supporters, who only hang out with other Trump supporters, who unfriend non Trump supporters on Facebook - who think every polls is rigged because everyone they know is voting Trump.  We are worried it will be a rallying cry for ranchers who don't want to pay grazing fees. For gun nuts who are convinced Obama is coming any day now for their AK-47s. For fundamentalists who think they should be able to do anything they want if they can point to something in a book that they think says they can.

Sadly, there actually may be some civil disturbances. Sheriff's that refuse to do their jobs. Terrorist groups that take over government buildings.  I think it will be rare and not interfere with the overall transfer of power, but there may be some whack-a-mole that has to happen for a while. But no Constitutional crisis, the Constitution is clear on what should happen. And all who actually respect the document and the Union will go along with the democratic process, and are free to whine about it as much as they want.


"Pitchforks and torches time," Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. tweeted on Saturday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846#ixzz4NLdQ7qt7

[patric]

"Pitchforks and torches time," Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. tweeted on Saturday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846#ixzz4NLdQ7qt7

Well, someone voted that wingnut in.  Mind you, a wingnut with MRAPs, stockpiles of automatic weapons, and authority.

Right wing Donald Trump supporters might take up arms against their own government. Like those wackos in Oregon. Or the wackos in Nevada. Or those wackos arrested last week for plotting terror attacks against Muslims in Kansas.

Just like the previous "thwarted plots" it will turn out to have been conceived, scripted, financed and coached by a mysterious "patriot" who comes out of nowhere and turns out to work for the FBI.  Yawn.

Of course Trump wont go with quiet dignity and grace.  If you have no peers, why would you feel the need to?