US Politics

[T-72]

 

[Darmashkian]

Yes, elect a Clinton instead. Because that worked out so well for the rich and the banks as well:

The rate of uninsured of Americans has dropped dramatically since the passage of the ACA, and is now at an all-time low:

"The percentage of Americans that do not have health insurance now sits at 8.6%, the lowest on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-without-health-insurance-all-time-low-uninsured-rate-2016-9


Very few companies have been forced to "downsize" as a result of Obamacare. This is more a (false) right-wing talking point than reality. Those that have had to do so, generally only had to let a small percentage of their employees go. And if a few firms had to downsize a little for more Americans to become insured and gain access to critical health services, so be it.








Not every claim is true. The election hasn't even taken place yet and the Trumpets are already shouting it's "rigged". Quite a ludicrous accusation at the state and national level in a developed country like America with a very long history of democracy. The shameful 2000 election fiasco aside, American elections have largely been controversy-free when it comes to actually counting the votes.




The vast majority of Sanders' supporters are going to vote for Hillary over Trump. That's a fact. You can look it up, any poll will show you this. Though many of them hate her too. And many, like me, won't be voting for either candidate.

He doesn't get pushed around by anyone. If you look at the political positions he's taken throughout his lengthy career as political servant, this is quite apparent. He's been remarkably consistent for a politician, and has almost always been on the "right" side of issue.

He's endorsed Hillary because he wants to stop Trump and because he wants protect himself from her supporters and the detestable people in her campaign/DNC. In January 2017, he will become unchained and will go back to being himself. If Clinton is elected President, he will likely be her foremost critic on economic issues. An area in which she will inevitably come up well short, and will even renege on the promises she made in her campaign (like on the TPP/banks/minimum wage).




There are very, very few instances of voter-fraud on record. The amount is negligible. No one actually tries to do this. If a sizable number people tried to do this, it would become obvious rather quickly. It's a non-issue brought up by Republicans to help suppress voting. All that these so called "Voter-ID" laws do is prevent many eligible voters from voting when they show up at their polling locations to vote.

I routinely forget my wallet when I travel, and so do others. Would it be right to deny them the right to vote simply because they forgot to bring an acceptable form identification with them? And what if what they did bring with them was deemed insufficient or outdated at the polls? What then? Most people vote on election day after work. Many don't have the time to go home, find the necessary identification if they have misplaced it, and then make it back in time to vote. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.

It's not about race. It's about poor and less-reliable voters. Would you support a strict voter identification system in India that would presumably unfairly affect poor/rural/inner-city voters? The wealthy and urban middle class and elites would have an out-sized influence on the election, if so. Is that true democracy?




Probably more like 45%+, actually. Hillary is that bad, unfortunately.




I have to disagree. Lots of people are telling pollsters that they will be voting Trump. They have little to lose by telling a pollster their preference. Though they may not always tell those around them.

However, as I've discussed before, polls may be overstating her support somewhat due to potential turnout problems.




Agreed.




Thank you for your kind words, my friend. But I am far more concerned about the long-term political and economic problems in this country than 4-8 years of Hillary or Trump. If we got through Dubya's Presidency, we will get through this too.

It's just hard to see us moving in the wrong direction yet again. Especially when we finally had a chance to start addressing the economic issues that plague this country. Income inequality is reaching near-disastrous levels not seen since the 1930s during the Great Depression.

The economy has grown dramatically since 1980, and yet, middle and working class Americans have seen their incomes and wealth decline slightly. Even though they have grown astronomically for the wealthiest 1-10% of Americans. What's the point of any economic growth at all when it is quite literally only the wealthy that benefit? Why should they get all of the income growth, if productivity per worker has increased dramatically too?

With Bernie Sanders, we finally had a candidate that would take real steps to reverse these trends and return the economy to what it used to be before the 1980s/1990s. He had the unique ability to get working-class white voters, middle-class voters, political independents, true progressives, and economically disadvantaged non-voters, lifting the slowly drowning Democratic Party with him.

Alas, he was passed over for a rich political opportunist with terrible political positions on economic and foreign policy issues, who is far less electable and is detested by the American public. Not to mention the poor judgment she has shown throughout her career and the innumerable amount of times she's changed her positions on issues. She has even lied outright to voters multiple times.

What the upside to Hilary is, I still don't know. Even her supporters can't tell us. They have resigned themselves to bashing Trump because they know that getting people to like Hillary herself is a losing proposition. If Sanders was the nominee instead, it would be a different picture politically and economically. We can only hope for better candidates next time. Though I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. At least in the near future.

Will respond later to this post.

https://twitter.com/x/status/790048047946428416

In other news,Trump gave a speech in Gettysburg,PA(note the significance of the location) where he laid out his 'contract with the American People'.

Some things are obvious like he doesn't care much about Climate Change....(Does he even believe in it??)+he is determined to do something about lobbying carried out by govt.. officials of special interests & other nations(check the 4th and 5th points below)

@Nilgiri @T-72 @boomslang @RabzonKhan @KAL-EL Have a look

I read a few weeks back that together with Chris Christie he is working on legislation to get rid of many bureaucrats & officials who he suspects to be pro-Obama & pro-Democrat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...burg_term_limits_energy_immigration_more.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following seven actions to protect American workers:

FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

2. End The Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.

5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you."

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Even if Trump wins more overall votes than Hillary what are his chances of getting the requisite electoral seats ? Isn't that required to win the election ? @Darmashkian @Nilgiri @Desert Fox

 

[T-72]

In other news,Trump gave a speech in Gettysburg,PA(note the significance of the location) where he laid out his 'contract with the American People'.

Some things are obvious like he doesn't care much about Climate Change....(Does he even believe in it??)+he is determined to do something about lobbying carried out by govt.. officials of special interests & other nations(check the 4th and 5th points below)

@Nilgiri @T-72 @boomslang @RabzonKhan @KAL-EL Have a look

I read a few weeks back that together with Chris Christie he is working on legislation to get rid of many bureaucrats & officials who he suspects to be pro-Obama & pro-Democrat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...burg_term_limits_energy_immigration_more.html

Seems to have a pretty decent anti corruption blueprint there, too bad their media are not going to help get it out, they'd rather obsess and manufacture outrage over some silly scandal.

 

[anon45]

I've got a really tough choice, vote Libertarian, or write in George Washington whose been dead for a while........

Enough Libertarian votes could potentially lead the libertarians to have a seat in the national debates next electionand secure more funding, so if you are serious, vote libertarian.

 

[Desert Fox]

He doesn't get pushed around by anyone. If you look at the political positions he's taken throughout his lengthy career as political servant, this is quite apparent. He's been remarkably consistent for a politician, and has almost always been on the "right" side of issue.

The above contradicts this below:

He's endorsed Hillary because he wants to stop Trump and because he wants protect himself from her supporters and the detestable people in her campaign/DNC. In January 2017, he will become unchained and will go back to being himself. If Clinton is elected President, he will likely be her foremost critic on economic issues. An area in which she will inevitably come up well short, and will even renege on the promises she made in her campaign (like on the TPP/banks/minimum wage).

A lot of which Bernie opposed Trump opposes too, and Hillary stands for, though granted Trump and Bernie do have their many differences, but not to the same extant Bernie has with Hillary and thus his endorsement of her was really shameful.

There are very, very few instances of voter-fraud on record. The amount is negligible. No one actually tries to do this. If a sizable number people tried to do this, it would become obvious rather quickly. It's a non-issue brought up by Republicans to help suppress voting. All that these so called "Voter-ID" laws do is prevent many eligible voters from voting when they show up at their polling locations to vote.

What you're talking about is "hard rigging" which is one of two types of rigging (the other being a "soft-rig"), something @gambit explained very well in this post: https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-118#post-8837591

"rigging" doesn't always imply in the voting sense, for example Hillary Clinton was provided with questions ahead of a debate with Bernie Sanders, thus it is safe to say the debate was rigged in her favor because Bernie wasn't getting such favors:

​

Also, i would just like to highlight another thing, a four star General gets sentenced to 5 years in prison for lying to the FBI for his mishandling of classified information, but Hillary Clinton who did the same gets off scotch free. In such a system where a known criminal is let loose and allowed to run for president i wouldn't be quick to rule out mass voter fraud (it's a possibility).

 

[jha]

RCP's tracker result is not what one imagines from following US media reports.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

In some polls, Trump is shown to be leading.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

RCP's tracker result is not what one imagines from following US media reports.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

In some polls, Trump is shown to be leading.

Does it matter ? In the electoral seat projections Trump is trailing by big margins.

 

[LA se Karachi]

The above contradicts this below:

No, it does not. I don't think you understood what I said.

Bernie has not changed his positions on any issues. Not one. And yes, he endorsed Hillary. Because, as bad as she is, she is still better than Trump. If only by a little bit. Unfortunately, our choices in this election are "bad" and "worse", because of our two-party system. Bernie, like most of his supporters who will vote for one of the two, has chosen "bad" (Clinton), because he doesn't have much of a choice. He has made his thoughts about Hillary's political positions very clear throughout the primary. He continues to disagree with some of them. And if she is elected President, he will fight her when he needs to as a Senator.

A lot of which Bernie opposed Trump opposes too, and Hillary stands for, though granted Trump and Bernie do have their many differences, but not to the same extant Bernie has with Hillary and thus his endorsement of her was really shameful.

False. You seem to be deliberately avoiding the fact that Bernie and Hillary, for all their differences, have more in common than Bernie and Trump do. They are both Democrats. You can cherry-pick some positions (like on trade), to show where Bernie and Trump agree. But the fact of the matter remains that they disagree far more than agree. Look up their political positions. I will be glad to point out the differences if you are unable to see. They're very apparent, especially on social issues.

What you're talking about is "hard rigging" which is one of two types of rigging (the other being a "soft-rig"), something @gambit explained very well in this post: https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...6-news-and-views.374363/page-118#post-8837591

"rigging" doesn't always imply in the voting sense, for example Hillary Clinton was provided with questions ahead of a debate with Bernie Sanders, thus it is safe to say the debate was rigged in her favor because Bernie wasn't getting such favors:

I was merely responding to the article you posted that seemed to focus on this "hard-rigging", as you call it. Look through your post again:

US Presidential Elections 2016 News and Views

And as for "soft-rigging", there is no party apparatus like there was in the Democratic Primary between Sanders and Clinton. Trump too may have been a victim of this when he was running in the Republican Primary, but he won nonetheless.

For the general election, however, there is no DNC/RNC to mess with things behind the scenes. The media pointing how crazy Trump can be sometimes is not evidence of "soft-rigging".

 

[Desert Fox]

No, it does not. I don't think you understood what I said.

Bernie has not changed his positions on any issues. Not one. And yes, he endorsed Hillary. Because, as bad as she is, she is still better than Trump. If only by a little bit. Unfortunately, our choices in this election are "bad" and "worse", because of our two-party system. Bernie, like most of his supporters who will vote for one of the two, has chosen "bad" (Clinton), because he doesn't have much of a choice. He has made his thoughts about Hillary's political positions very clear throughout the primary. He continues to disagree with some of them. And if she is elected President, he will fight her when he needs to as a Senator.

Yes it does. You stated he did it out of fear. Endorsing someone who he said "has a very bad judgement", on top of disagreeing with her on many issues does show a serious contradiction in his stance. I never implied that he should have endorse Trump or that he had to, but neither did he have to endorse a woman whom he said "has a very bad judgement" because then that just shows a serious contradiction in him.

False. You seem to be deliberately avoiding the fact that Bernie and Hillary, for all their differences, have more in common than Bernie and Trump do. They are both Democrats. You can cherry-pick some positions (like on trade), to show where Bernie and Trump agree. But the fact of the matter remains that they disagree far more than agree. Look up their political positions. I will be glad to point out the differences if you are unable to see. They're very apparent, especially on social issues.

No i'm not. I don't see why you are making this a personal issue.

And yes, their differences are VERY significant, even if they might agree on a couple of things. For example, along with their differences on trade, Hillary is very pro-interventionist and a war-hawk while Bernie is not and this is a much bigger issue compared to something like abortion, free (college) education, or immigration since the implications will be far reaching.

I was merely responding to the article you posted that seemed to focus on this "hard-rigging", as you call it. Look through your post again:

US Presidential Elections 2016 News and Views

And as for "soft-rigging", there is no party apparatus like there was in the Democratic Primary between Sanders and Clinton. Trump too may have been a victim of this when he was running in the Republican Primary, but he won nonetheless.

For the general election, however, there is no DNC/RNC to mess with things behind the scenes. The media pointing how crazy Trump can be sometimes is not evidence of "soft-rigging".

EDITED: You quoted two of my posts, and the article i posted was merely to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats and their media arms who accuse Trump of inciting doubts in the election system when they did the same exact thing in the past. . And nothing can be more crazier than a delusional woman who wants to impose a no-fly-zone on a nuclear armed country in order to protect "moderate" terrorists. Not to mention she claims to champion women's rights but takes massive donations from Saudi Arabia.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Yes it does. You stated he did it out of fear.

No it does not. Please re-read my post. It's the very first thing I said for a reason. The primary reason he did it was out of fear of Trump:

He's endorsed Hillary because he wants to stop Trump and because he wants protect himself from her supporters and the detestable people in her campaign/DNC. In January 2017, he will become unchained and will go back to being himself. If Clinton is elected President, he will likely be her foremost critic on economic issues. An area in which she will inevitably come up well short, and will even renege on the promises she made in her campaign (like on the TPP/banks/minimum wage).

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/us-presi...-news-and-views.374363/page-118#ixzz4NwxJUG35

Clinton's loathsome surrogates are only a side issue. A President Trump is far more dangerous to him than any backlash from her backers/the Democratic Party. Being "pushed around" would mean changing his positions on important issues to go along with Clinton. He has not done that. Not endorsing Hillary to help stop Trump, a person he detests.

Endorsing someone who he said "has a very bad judgement", on top of disagreeing with her on many issues does show a serious contradiction in his stance.

Again you seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that Trump has worse judgement and he disagrees on more with him than Hillary. I'm not sure how much clearer I can put it. I can post videos of Bernie both now and before she was nominated to make my point if you want. I'll let him speak for himself.

No i'm not. I don't see why you are making this a personal issue.

I don't know what you mean by that. I don't believe I'm doing any such thing. No need to take it personally, my friend. I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope that you are too.

I was just trying to say that your arguments seem to be predicated on the (false) idea that he has more in common with Trump than Hillary. That's simply not true. Though Hillary and Bernie do have large differences on some issues too. No doubt about that.

this is a much bigger issue compared to something like abortion, free education, or immigration since the implications will be far reaching.

Maybe you for you. That's entirely your opinion. His former supporters seem to disagree. There are many issues in an American Presidential election. Social, political, economic, and foreign policy related issues, etc...

Only on foreign policy and trade do you allege that Bernie has more in common with Trump than Hillary. I don't agree (he's different from both). But either way, the other issues combined far outweigh foreign policy when it comes to the impact on a person's life. And on almost all of them (trade aside), Bernie has more in common with Hillary.

And yes, their differences are VERY significant, even if they might agree on a couple of things. For example, along with their differences on trade, Hillary is very pro-interventionist and a war-hawk while Bernie is not...

Contrary to what you might think, Trump is quite a hawk when it comes to the Middle East/Muslim countries. Look up the things he's said. And yes, unfortunately, Hillary is somewhat of a hawk too, if in a different way than Trump. They're both bad on foreign policy, in my opinion.

But ultimately, I don't care. Either way, he has more in common with Hillary than Trump, whatever views you might have about their foreign policy. That's my only point.

EDITED: You quoted two of my posts, and the article i posted was merely to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats and their media arms who accuse Trump of inciting doubts in the election system when they did the same exact thing in the past.

Understood, but I quoted your post/article only to respond to you when you said that my earlier post on page 118 only discussed "hard-rigging" and not "soft-rigging". That was true. But I did this only to show I was responding to the "hard-rigging" that your article was discussing. There will be no "hard rigging" in this election. That was my point.

I responded to your claim of possible "soft-rigging" in the general election separately in my previous post above, on this page.

 

[gambit]

The media pointing how crazy Trump can be sometimes is not evidence of "soft-rigging".

But if the media does not allocate the equal efforts and resources to investigate HC's unethical, if not outright illegal, acts, then it is a soft rig. So far, as much as it is funny to say this, Fox News seems to be the real journalist in this. But ultimately, because FN is outnumbered, the soft rig is favorable to HC.

Why is 'crazy' deemed more newsworthy than 'unethical' ? In the criminal justice system, being mentally ill will reduce your punishment considerably, but the harshest condemnation from the public will always be for those who are of sound mind and uses his/her intelligence and insider knowledge for personal gains.

We judge someone not on whether he/she is technically guilty but more on intent. If I leer at your little girl, how would you feel being around me, even though I have not done anything technically criminal ? So when the 'mainstream media', aka the MSM in FN-speak, consistently pointed out how HC have not broken any law and sidesteps the ethical trespass, that is a soft rig for her. Likewise, the MSM often pointed out Chump's paying zero taxes, even though seemingly every tax loopholes he used were legal, and insinuate that he enjoys skirting the boundaries of legality, that is a soft rig against him.

 

[cloud4000]

Enough Libertarian votes could potentially lead the libertarians to have a seat in the national debates next electionand secure more funding, so if you are serious, vote libertarian.

I'm voting Libertarian because I'm a libertarian, and have been one since 1996. No Libertarians will do better this time then any other time in its history. The idea of being allowed on debates would be welcome, but I don't know if libertarians should be taking tax payer money. It's a matter of principle: why should taxpayers be forced to give money to politicians, especially whose views they find abhorrent? Do you really want taxpayer money to go to the likes of David Duke and other racist scum?

It's an interesting question to ponder.

 

[LA se Karachi]

But if the media does not allocate the equal efforts and resources to investigate HC's unethical, if not outright illegal, acts, then it is a soft rig.

I agree. The media's lack of coverage regarding Hillary Clinton's email scandal was shameful. However, the FBI essentially letting her off the hook made it difficult for them to continue covering the issue. It just came off as beating a dead horse. Even though it was a legitimate issue.

So far, as much as it is funny to say this, Fox News seems to be the real journalist in this.

Sad but true. As Sanders supporter, I noticed this during the primaries. And believe me, the irony is not lost on me. They were one of the few media sources that gave it proper attention. But you've heard the story about the boy that cried "wolf". It's too bad that other, more respectable, media outlets didn't cover it enough.

Why is 'crazy' deemed more newsworthy than 'unethical' ? In the criminal justice system, being mentally ill will reduce your punishment considerably, but the harshest condemnation from the public will always be for those who are of sound mind and uses his/her intelligence and insider knowledge for personal gains.

We judge someone not on whether he/she is technically guilty but more on intent. If I leer at your little girl, how would you feel being around me, even though I have not done anything technically criminal ?

I do believe that they had this idea of "too big to jail". But what can you do if the government (and the FBI) is unwilling to take a stand and do its job? Even if they couldn't indict her, they could have made their views about her unethical actions very clear. Instead, they chose to go soft on her.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the FBI released its findings after it became clear the Hillary Clinton had sewn up the nomination. Perhaps they would been more damning in their report if she had lost, knowing that Trump could not have used it as ammunition against her. It does raise serious questions about our government.

It seems to me that Hillary found the ultimate "get out of jail free card" in more ways than one with Trump. What can you do?

. Likewise, the MSM often pointed out Chump's paying zero taxes, even though seemingly every tax loopholes he used were legal, and insinuate that he enjoys skirting the boundaries of legality, that is a soft rig against him.

On this, I have to disagree with you. He could have released his tax returns on his own and avoided some of the shock factor. He chose not to do. Secondly, the people are free to make their own decisions. There is no "rig" on this particular issue of any kind. The media is simply reporting the truth. Personally, I would hope that people find it horrific that such a rich man has been able to avoid paying taxes through what seem to be completely legal means. The tax code needs a serious overhaul.

Either way, the reason it's such a revelation to some (and the media) is that he constantly talks about himself as some wildly successful businessman. Many of his supporters like him for this reason (whether you agree with them or not). They believe that his supposed business acumen will help make him a good president. But his tax records allegedly show a huge loss (in the booming 1990s, no less). A loss so large, that it's possible he's been using it to avoid paying taxes these past twenty years. That's very relevant when it comes to his candidacy. And it should be covered extensively.

 

[T-72]