Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

The fact is that Trump still hasn't matched his polling highpoint since he briefly hit it for under a week after the RNC, since that time the american public, who many of which at that point weren't paying much attention to the election, have gotten the chance to see Trump perform in three debates, that didn't go well for him and most of them have made up their minds. If anything the tightening of the polling makes it more likely that Clinton will win, given that it will help with her turnout.

Though it won't help with downticket races, so the republicans have a better chance of holding onto the Senate.

Yeah even with this shit, Trump will not win. Still taking bets for anyone who wants to lose their money. :)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit

Reposting this because jesus christ. That a federal judge saw enough to proceed with a hearing is way further than any presidential candidate should get in a case like that.

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:59 PM, ignatius said:

lol

  On 11/1/2016 at 3:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Y'all saw this, right?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

Awesome.

Btw I'm not that informed into all this US election entertainment, but why wouldn't Putin want a weakened, #crookedHillary in office, whose first term will be in full attack from republicans / full investigation for all the alluded scandals?

  On 11/2/2016 at 12:28 AM, Djeroek said:

 

  On 11/1/2016 at 3:35 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Y'all saw this, right?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

 

Awesome.

 

Btw I'm not that informed into all this US election entertainment, but why wouldn't Putin want a weakened, #crookedHillary in office, whose first term will be in full attack from republicans / full investigation for all the alluded scandals?

 

because republican attack mode in congress and/or the senate doesn't really affect US foreign policy

  On 11/1/2016 at 7:57 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:59 PM, ignatius said:

 

lol

 

Pull the heart plug already

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:09 AM, Rubin Farr said:

 

  On 11/1/2016 at 7:57 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:59 PM, ignatius said:

 

lol

 

 

Pull the heart plug already

 

cyanide vapor blown in the face would probably do the trick also

So, to recap. Hillary keeps trying to link Trump with Russia after selling 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia, and her campaign chairman John Podesta owns 75,000 shares in a Russian energy company with ties to Putin...oh, but let's keep projecting. Come on...

^^^^^ i think that's a direct quote from alt right reddit somewhere... pretty sure i read that word for word there today somewhere. 

anyway... 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

  Quote

Trump’s claim is a reductive version of his source material’s findings and runs into several problems.

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 bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo.

 

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:32 AM, roasty said:

So, to recap. Hillary keeps trying to link Trump with Russia after selling 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia, and her campaign chairman John Podesta owns 75,000 shares in a Russian energy company with ties to Putin...oh, but let's keep projecting. Come on...

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:32 AM, roasty said:

So, to recap. Hillary keeps trying to link Trump with Russia after selling 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia, and her campaign chairman John Podesta owns 75,000 shares in a Russian energy company with ties to Putin...oh, but let's keep projecting. Come on...

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Who sold what to whatnow?

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:41 AM, ignatius said:

 

^^^^^ i think that's a direct quote from alt right reddit somewhere... pretty sure i read that word for word there today somewhere. 

appeal to ridicule much

lol

  On 11/2/2016 at 8:30 AM, roasty said:

 

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:41 AM, ignatius said:

 

^^^^^ i think that's a direct quote from alt right reddit somewhere... pretty sure i read that word for word there today somewhere. 

 

appeal to ridicule much

 

 

it's just an observation. sorry. didn't mean to ridicule or mock.  but it's a very common thing going around right.. i find it interesting how talking points get stamped into people's minds.. not saying that's what happened in your post.. it's just something i find fascinating and it happens on the left as much as on the right. 

but that bit about the uranium is pretty well debunked. 

as for the youtube armchair wiki leaks bombshell video.. i can't watch that guy.. really.  my face feels like its going to fall off as son as that video starts.. random stuff on youtube is just bizarre to me at this point.  90% of those people don't know anything more than i do and they're just there talking away ad nauseam 

https://twitter.com/samfbiddle/status/793541874590031872

btw an anagram of Trump is Murpt

  On 11/2/2016 at 8:30 AM, roasty said:

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:41 AM, ignatius said:

 

 

appeal to ridicule much

 

Amazing. 

**corrects the record**

  On 11/2/2016 at 9:28 AM, Djeroek said:

 

  On 11/2/2016 at 8:30 AM, roasty said:

  On 11/2/2016 at 7:41 AM, ignatius said:

 

appeal to ridicule much

 

 

Amazing. 

 

surprised, tbh. I was used to TYT being baiting garbage.

rich people like to hang around with politicians, more shocking news at 11. if they were to find any evidence of an actual quid pro quo then it would be interesting, but there's zero evidence for that so far. sure it's probably unethical and sleazy at best, but it doesn't appear to be criminal, nor explicitly corrupt. given all the other issues at stake in the election, it's insignificant.

at least the Clinton Foundation is an actual charity as well, unlike the Trump Foundation which seems to exist for paying off lawsuits, fixing water fountains in his hotels, and paying for portraits of The Donald (and hilariously, paying the $7 registration fee for his son to join the boy scouts! he couldn't afford to pay that out of his own pocket?!), it occasionally gives some money to actual charities, but it gets the money from other people, Trump himself doesn't give significant money to charity, unlike the Clintons who donate significant amounts of their own money to charity (around 10% of their income, all of which is public record, because of the high level of transparency of the accounts of the foundation itself and their own tax records). Trump has given around 10% of what the Clinton's have given to charities, and he claims he's a billionaire, and even a lot of that 10% is rather suspicious when you look into the recipients (conservative religious groups for example).

http://correctrecord.org/about/