Falsely said

[tenni]

Are people in the US able to find the truth? Are people around the world much better?

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump did two Fox News interviews and spoke at a rally in Fort Myers, Fla., on Monday. The Republican presidential nominee said at least 10 false things:


• Falsely claimed the U.S. is taking back Daesh fighters who want to return home even though “we know” they have fought for Daesh, also known as ISIS and ISIL.

• Falsely claimed his polls show “the highest levels of enthusiasm that they’ve seen.” (Trump’s “very enthusiastic” percentage was 45 per cent in the latest CNN poll; 46 per cent of Romney supporters were “very enthusiastic” in Oct. 2012.)
f
• Falsely said, “I was against getting into the war in Iraq.”

• Falsely said, “All together, her plan would bring in 620,000 refugees in her first term ...” (Clinton has not actually proposed the 620,000 number, which was implausibly calculated by Trump ally Jeff Sessions.)

• Falsely said, “…with no effective way to screen them or vet them. Law enforcement said, ‘There’s no way.’” (While authorities have discussed shortcomings in refugee screening, nobody has said “there’s no way.”)

• Falsely claimed Obama went on an “apology tour” during which he “apologized for the United States: ‘We’re sorry, we’re so sorry, we are so sorry.’” (While Obama discussed U.S. failings, he never uttered an apology for the United States.)

• Falsely claimed that Al Wilson wrote the song “The Snake” in the 1990s. (Wilson recorded it in the 1960s; it was written by Oscar Brown Jr. earlier in the 1960s.)


• Falsely said, “I am going to massively lower your taxes. That’s businesses, and that’s middle-income, that’s everybody.” (Trump has no massive middle-income tax cut. According to the conservative Tax Foundation, people below the top 1 per cent of earners would get only a 2 per cent income boost before accounting for hypothetical economic growth, while the superrich would get more than 10 per cent.)

• Falsely suggested America “allow(s)” jihadi magazines to be “sold” domestically

• Falsely suggested Hillary Clinton has never criticized people who “oppose and murder women and gays overseas.”

• Said with no evidence that “local police” know “who a lot of these people (terrorists) are” but do not investigate because they “don’t want to be accused of profiling.”

• Said with no evidence that refugees are “plotting” attacks together.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/20/donald-trump-said-at-least-10-false-things-monday.html

[pole_smoker]

[bigbob1962]

Only two choices only one more than Russia gets.

[two2tango]

She's a cunt, period!

[12voltyV2.0]

Are people in the US able to find the truth? Are people around the world much better?

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump did two Fox News interviews and spoke at a rally in Fort Myers, Fla., on Monday. The Republican presidential nominee said at least 10 false things:


• Falsely claimed the U.S. is taking back Daesh fighters who want to return home even though “we know” they have fought for Daesh, also known as ISIS and ISIL.

• Falsely claimed his polls show “the highest levels of enthusiasm that they’ve seen.” (Trump’s “very enthusiastic” percentage was 45 per cent in the latest CNN poll; 46 per cent of Romney supporters were “very enthusiastic” in Oct. 2012.)
f
• Falsely said, “I was against getting into the war in Iraq.”

• Falsely said, “All together, her plan would bring in 620,000 refugees in her first term ...” (Clinton has not actually proposed the 620,000 number, which was implausibly calculated by Trump ally Jeff Sessions.)

• Falsely said, “…with no effective way to screen them or vet them. Law enforcement said, ‘There’s no way.’” (While authorities have discussed shortcomings in refugee screening, nobody has said “there’s no way.”)

• Falsely claimed Obama went on an “apology tour” during which he “apologized for the United States: ‘We’re sorry, we’re so sorry, we are so sorry.’” (While Obama discussed U.S. failings, he never uttered an apology for the United States.)

• Falsely claimed that Al Wilson wrote the song “The Snake” in the 1990s. (Wilson recorded it in the 1960s; it was written by Oscar Brown Jr. earlier in the 1960s.)


• Falsely said, “I am going to massively lower your taxes. That’s businesses, and that’s middle-income, that’s everybody.” (Trump has no massive middle-income tax cut. According to the conservative Tax Foundation, people below the top 1 per cent of earners would get only a 2 per cent income boost before accounting for hypothetical economic growth, while the superrich would get more than 10 per cent.)

• Falsely suggested America “allow(s)” jihadi magazines to be “sold” domestically

• Falsely suggested Hillary Clinton has never criticized people who “oppose and murder women and gays overseas.”

• Said with no evidence that “local police” know “who a lot of these people (terrorists) are” but do not investigate because they “don’t want to be accused of profiling.”

• Said with no evidence that refugees are “plotting” attacks together.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/20/donald-trump-said-at-least-10-false-things-monday.html

Keith Olberman is back doing an online video program for GQ Magazine---in one he did the other day---he cited 176 things that Herr Donald has said that are out and out lies since he started his campaign over a year ago---it really is the case that pretty much everything the man says is a lie--some of the big ones---that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering on as the towers of the World Trade Center fell. Another one--that he personally had HUNDREDS of friends who died in the NYC 9/11 attacks. Reporters have proven that he didn't know a single person who died in 9/11. Trump NEVER attended ANY 9/11 memorials, funerals, etc until the one last week at the site of the towers. Trump never gave one penny to any 9/11 related charity, etc.

When it comes to "The Trump Foundation"---he only gave a minor amount to it when it was created, but hasn't given a penny since then and he has solicited money from others for it, that he then has used to do things like have huge paintings of himself commissioned, paid for things to some of his businesses that he provides to others. Hardly much of a charity.

He says he gave millions to veteran's groups--he only gave a very small fraction of that--only when he got called out on that BS.

He has business ties with Russian companies--some with ties to the Russian Mob.

He praises Vladimir Putin, a man who started life as a thug for one of the most brutish and deadly "intelligence" agencies the world has ever seen--the former Soviet KGB, then after the fall of the Soviet Union----he did the same thing for the FSB, the new non-communist Russian government successor intel agency---then he started his run to be supreme leader in Russia--using all sorts of nefarious ways to get into power and hold it---with the body count pretty high and he surely doesn't care much for true democracy and "the rule of law."

Trump seems to hold out Putin as some sort of exemplar as a leader----saying that he is a better leader than is Barack Obama. Well---while Barack Obama is accused of being so horrid and undemocratic---which is purely bullshit and a fucked up and faulty narrative that so many hold is true for Obama--but it is without doubt that Putin is an dictatorial, totalitarian, oligarchical despot.

When it comes to Trump's business dealings---in dealing with many small, "mom and pop" businesses who have served as vendors, suppliers, etc to the many Trump business entities--he has scores of proven instances in which he has "stiffed" them, refusing to pay for services, product and such delivered--but often NEVER PAID for and at best--he winds up paying those folks pennies on the dollar--with the case being in many such instances----with those being small businesses--even if they have been in business for many years----they cannot afford having been stiffed and a good business winds up going bust thanks to Herr Donald. So much for the man giving much of a shit about "the small guy or gal!!"

Also---Donald Trump does not have the confidence of some fellow and TRUE Billionaires such as Mark Cuban, Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett---have gone on record saying that much of what Trump recommends on the business and economic side----will not help the American economy or create jobs---he will in fact trash the stock market--and his proposals will bust the budget and dramatically inflate the deficit. With his proposals regarding trade--it will start trade wars and with the nature of the supply line for industries such as autos---his plans would wipe out our auto industry and that is just but one such industry his proposals will destroy.

Even though it is somewhat true that Hilary can be less than transparent and a bit foolish in some of the things she does--when it comes to wronging doing--in our Constitutional system---it holds that a person is innocent of having committed any crimes until and unless they have been duly convicted in a Court of Law and she never has been--she has never even been indicted., so it is yet another bullshit narrative that Hillary Clinton is so supposedly corrupt.

One may not like Hillary, but she is not in any way as bad as Donald J. Trump. As even many long time Republicans who do things like manage political campaigns of Republican candidates, have served in Republican Presidential administrations and other such capacities have noted---"Hillary has her problems, but her problems are within the normal range of where many politicians fall. Donald Trump and his difficulty with the truth takes that to an entirely new level, to a place never seen in modern presidential politics."

While I am not attributing that quote to any specific such person, I have heard something along such lines said by many Republican operatives on shows on MSNBC, CNN, the BBC, CBS, NBC, CBS and even FOX, One America News and NewsMax---all very conservative, Republican leaning news organizations.

I am for Hilary I do admit. I would have preferred to have had a better person than she to have sought and won the Democratic POTUS nomination and I surely would have hoped that someone other than Donald Trump would have won the Republican nomination---my personal choice for that would have been Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Even though I don't much care for many of the things that Kasich has done as Ohio governor---I have to say--that Ohio is doing better now than it has in years. The man can govern and he is not an ego maniac.

There are so many other negative things that can be said about Donald Trump---but bottom line--no way on God's Green Earth does the man have the moral character, ethical integrity, or temperament to serve as the President of These United States of America, nor does he qualify to also serve in the dual role of Commander in Chief.

There are now scores of past top military commanders, those who have served in some capacity in our national security and intelligence services who all say that Trump is not qualified in any fashion to serve as POTUS or CnC for many reasons.

It is mere surmising and speculation that Hilary Clinton will do things that unconstitutional--but in so many of the things Trump says he will do as president----it is very clear that in order to do so--HE WILL do many things that basically scuttle the Constitution.

I cannot see how ANYONE with even a bit of sense can be for Donald Trump--the man has clearly shown he is unfit in all ways to be the president of this nation....

My opposition to Donald J. Trump really is not all political at this point--I do think a vote for Hillary is once again--a vote that is choosing the "lessor of two evils"----but she is among the only two truly viable candidates-----with the way our system is set up---and it is too bad this is so---a "third party candidate" has not a snowball's chance in hell of winning so voting for such a candidate--really is a thrown away vote. My being against Trump is about reason, sanity and overall--what is best for this nation.

There are many people, many Republicans among them--such as HW Bush is being reported saying he is casting his vote for Hilary, who actually say that among the possible negative outcomes should Trump become president---is that he will force some sort of "Constitutional Crisis" such as the military refuses to carry out his orders and that he could actually start a nuclear war.....

Sorry there Donald---we simply CANNOT TAKE A CHANCE WITH YOU!! You are too unsound in many ways to roll the dice on--all indications is that your presidency--will be a disaster for this nation---a disaster on many levels from which we may not be able to overcome...

Ok--I know that some will not agree with me on my conclusions---but I dare say that in the main, what I have said here are facts, facts that cannot be disputed. The sources to have based these conclusions come from what has been reported by a wide variety of the world's main news organizations that also range, at least in common perception, from "liberal" ones, to those accepted to "play it down the middle" and "conservative" ones that include the news organizations I have mentioned and also include others such as The Guardian and The Economist, NHK from Japan, the NY Times, The Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, National Public Radio, to name but a few....

[darkeyes]

She's a cunt, period!

Aaaahh.. misogyny. More of that over here too.. if u have no argument other than name calling I suggest u say nothing. If u do, then I suggest u deploy it..

[darkeyes]

Only two choices only one more than Russia gets.

Aren't there 5 candidates this year? The same number as contested the 2012 Russia Presidential election?

[MorThan7]

I'm surprised that the Moderators allowed this thread to stay since politics can be extremely divisive. People have their own opinions and none of them are related to the purpose or mission of this website. But since political opinions are allowed then people should prepare themselves for opposing views.

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump did two Fox News interviews and spoke at a rally in Fort Myers, Fla., on Monday. The Republican presidential nominee said at least 10 false things:

All those ten points are subject to two different sides. Trump believes one thing, somebody at "The Star" believes something else. No one on this site can say for certainty which one is true. Several of the points made by the Star I disagree with and they relate to things that haven't happened yet.

Funny that Hilary Clinton didn't receive an equal amount of scrutiny when it comes to the truth.

We all heard her testimony before Congress. We all heard her say she had one device that she used for emails. The FBI reported (not a media outlet, and not a known liar like Keith Olberman) that there were actually 13 devices. She also said that she didn't send or receive any emails that were "marked" classified. (notice the caveat "marked" which she can cleverly uses} The FBI reports there were many emails that were indeed marked classified and many that were classified. They are still finding them. The reason that they are hard to find is because she deleted the emails and had her devices destroyed or sanitized. This is direct action that she took and that leaves no room for interpretation. She clearly broke the law, lied to the American people, then lied about lying. Anyone else would be in jail (remember Martha Stewart) and have her security clearance revoked.

I am not a Trump fan but none of his actions come close to the level of corruption in this one instance of the many Hilary scandals.

[tenni]

Today the paper referenced 15 falsehood stated by Trump on Tuesday. I do wonder how Trump supporters would approach that?

As far as Clinton, media reports here refer to both of them having lied. There is a difference in the quality and frequency of the lies. Trump is way ahead as to the number of daily lies compared to Clinton daily lies.

The media does not point out the number of lies of Clinton. Why? Maybe there are not enough daily lies for the media to notice? Maybe there is a media bias?

I don't know about corruption versus lies and which people believe is worse. I would suspect that corruption questions have come in to our media (we watch both US and Canadian media) The most recent questionable accusation had to do with a US blonde woman in a political office receiving money for re election or some questionably ethical while Trump was being investigated by her office. (I may have the details slightly wrong.

This site has always had political discussions. The frequency has drastically reduced in the past two years.

[darkeyes]

I'm surprised that the Moderators allowed this thread to stay since politics can be extremely divisive. People have their own opinions and none of them are related to the purpose or mission of this website. But since political opinions are allowed then people should prepare themselves for opposing views.



All those ten points are subject to two different sides. Trump believes one thing, somebody at "The Star" believes something else. No one on this site can say for certainty which one is true. Several of the points made by the Star I disagree with and they relate to things that haven't happened yet.

Funny that Hilary Clinton didn't receive an equal amount of scrutiny when it comes to the truth.

We all heard her testimony before Congress. We all heard her say she had one device that she used for emails. The FBI reported (not a media outlet, and not a known liar like Keith Olberman) that there were actually 13 devices. She also said that she didn't send or receive any emails that were "marked" classified. (notice the caveat "marked" which she can cleverly uses} The FBI reports there were many emails that were indeed marked classified and many that were classified. They are still finding them. The reason that they are hard to find is because she deleted the emails and had her devices destroyed or sanitized. This is direct action that she took and that leaves no room for interpretation. She clearly broke the law, lied to the American people, then lied about lying. Anyone else would be in jail (remember Martha Stewart) and have her security clearance revoked.

I am not a Trump fan but none of his actions come close to the level of corruption in this one instance of the many Hilary scandals.

There has never really been any moderating on this site. Now and then Drew, the owner, deleted the odd post but rarely with a very heavy hand.. since his death there has been no moderation at all.. in any case .com has always had some right ding dong barneys about politics though in the last few years trollism has kind of ruined any real debate.. every debate has at least two sides.. isn't a debate otherwise. A good thing in a free and democratic society.. ot too sure the S or the UK can be called either but there is at least some right of free speech..

I am no Hillary lover.. cant vote either u will note coming where I do, but US Presidents tend to affect us over here and not always for the better. Some of Clinton's comments about Israel and Palestine leave me cold. Trump however leaves me cold about almost about everything. Every time he opens his big fat gob out rolls h8. Lies and h8.. and folk reckon Clinton is a liar? Well.. news.. something politicians tend to be. It is the nature of the beast. U should have gone through the Brexit campaign. Now there u will have witnessed some really professional top notch liars. On both sides, but the Brexiters particularly so.. Clinton isn't even close bad as she is.. Trump however is as good as any we endured during the referendum campaign. Makes sense since he and the Brexiters are triff bedfellows... big chums wiv Fartage isn't he? Trump and Fartage.. sleekit, bent pair of toerags... and don't start me on Mrs May..... I may become apoplectic and lose the plot.

The question isn't whether one or other is a liar but which is the biggest liar or least dishonest, most/least dangerous to the peace of the world and least/most advantageous to the great mass of ordinary American people and whether ur own brand of politics is likely to be met by either in any way shape or form. U do however have other candidates. maybe choose one? A more honest one. Is there a more honest one? Shitty ole world isnt it. And folk at home wonder why I am increasingly pissed off and disillusioned by this thing we call representative democracy... they tell me it is the best form of government we have however bad it is. Maybe though I have me doubts.... a shite poor best isn't it?

[MorThan7]

I don't know about corruption versus lies and which people believe is worse.

I am shocked by that statement. I'm also surprised at the lack of critical thinking. As I pointed out in the case of Trump it was which source do you believe. You also admit to the media ignoring any bad press for Hilary yet you continue to use them as a credible (unbiased) information source. Interesting...

[MorThan7]

And folk at home wonder why I am increasingly pissed off and disillusioned by this thing we call representative democracy... they tell me it is the best form of government we have however bad it is. Maybe though I have me doubts.... a shite poor best isn't it?

What we are supposed to have over here is a Constitutional Republic. Basically, people are supposed to be governed by the rule of law and that laws apply to everyone equally. To me having a difference in the interpretation of political facts does not make one side a liar. Especially when the side with the opposing view is the media.

When someone uses their political connections to get around the law applying to them and there is clear evidence of corruption, that person is not qualified to hold any elected office.

[Realist]

When I was planning to vote for the first time, I was sweating blood over my decisions.

Confiding in my grandfather, he told me, this:

"Look at every candidate, study their accomplishments, try to find out how they deal with diverse situations and see if you can find any dishonesty, or breaking of serious laws, both moral and legal. Then, when you've done all you can, to determine the best person for the job, vote for the LEAST CROOKED ONE!

That's all of a political statement I want to make, but it seems to me that my grandfather's advice becomes more difficult each election year!

[darkeyes]

What we are supposed to have over here is a Constitutional Republic. Basically, people are supposed to be governed by the rule of law and that laws apply to everyone equally. To me having a difference in the interpretation of political facts does not make one side a liar. Especially when the side with the opposing view is the media.

When someone uses their political connections to get around the law applying to them and there is clear evidence of corruption, that person is not qualified to hold any elected office.

Indeed the US is a constitutional republic, but one which takes the form of a representative democracy. Many nations have constitutional republics but not all are democratic in any way. Not all elect representatives to a parliament or congress.

As it happens I agree with ur statement that differing with a opponent does not make either a liar.. at least not necessarily. However all too often it means exactly that.. often. Too often one, both or all candidates do lie. Honest politicians are, alas, a very rare breed indeed... call me a cynic .. I agree because I am.. in over 20 years of political activity and observation the nature of the political class has done nothing to diminish an ever growing cynicism.

I also agree that allegedly bent politicians should be prosecuted and if found guilty should be removed from office and if necessary jailed. Proving corruption just as proving any crime in accordance with the law before a jury is another matter. Word of warning. Being found not guilty does not mean innocence any more than being found guilty means actual guilt. It should but human beings are flawed creatures and judge in error quite frequently.

[tenni]

I am shocked by that statement. I'm also surprised at the lack of critical thinking. As I pointed out in the case of Trump it was which source do you believe. You also admit to the media ignoring any bad press for Hilary yet you continue to use them as a credible (unbiased) information source. Interesting...

hmm I do not know about whether the media is ignoring lies by Hilary and that is one reason for posting here. I'm open to what you have to say about this topic. My source is more than one Canadian media (electronic or print) are making statements about Trump. When I compare CBCNewsworld to CNN CBC is clearly paying more attention to world politically. The credibility of the media is important to pay attention to. The bias or unbias of the media is determined by comparison and over time.

Do you consider corruption acceptable and lies unacceptable or vice versa? or both equally unacceptable? The topic is not about corruption though. It is about falseness in your election candidates. Are some lies worse than others? I would think that they are.

[12voltyV2.0]

Well---one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in America, The Cincinnati Inquirer, with a history dating back 100 years of endorsing Republican POTUS nominees, today came out with a combination strong endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president and an equally strong condemnation of Donald Trump along with all the reasons they feel Trump is not suited or qualified to be president. Recently a newspaper in Texas that also has a long history of endorsing Republican presidential nominees, also came out against Trump and for Clinton.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opin...rump/90728344/

[singlebimale41]

She's a cunt, period!

Just for laughs lets just say you are correct. I don't care. This is not about who I want to have dinner and drinks with, this is about choosing the most qualified of the people running for the office. I'm voting based on who l think is most capable, who won't put personal profit over national interests, who won't cozy up to foreign tyrants because they say nice things about them and I'm going to vote based on who isn't vilifying and demanding we take back the country from other Americans period.
So again assume you are right, she's a cunt, and lets also say he's a tool. That would make both of them a problem for those close to them. However a dangerous unqualified racist reactionary, with no understanding of fiscal realities and no sense of personal ethics, someone lacking any understanding of constitutional mechanisms of government and a 14 year old bully's view of foreign policy would be a problem of nightmarish proportions for all of the rest of us.

[Jim Handy]

One rule of thumb I use. Most TV ads, biggest billboards, constant radio ads, most yard signs, show me the candidate with the most money, therefore the one most probably bought and paid for already. SO I look at the one with the fewer brags and usually vote for them....

[12voltyV2.0]

More reports on the corruption that is Donald Trump: http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/09/2...ecret-service/

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...ambling-502144

So amazing---so much noise about all the ways that people think Hilary is so corrupt---but yet there are scores of such stories about Trump of this sort and his supporters just seem to love it that Trump is this way.

[cuttin2dachase]

Get real ! ALL politicians lie, cheat and enrich themselves via their power and connections. The candidates I've supported in the primaries over the years don't get the nomination...so I'm left with voting for the lesser of two evils...which is always the Republican.

[eddy10]

End the thread. Let's talk "bisexual." I come here to get away from all the political garbage.

[biguy1940]

Just for laughs lets just say you are correct. I don't care. This is not about who I want to have dinner and drinks with, this is about choosing the most qualified of the people running for the office. I'm voting based on who l think is most capable, who won't put personal profit over national interests, who won't cozy up to foreign tyrants because they say nice things about them and I'm going to vote based on who isn't vilifying and demanding we take back the country from other Americans period.
So again assume you are right, she's a cunt, and lets also say he's a tool. That would make both of them a problem for those close to them. However a dangerous unqualified racist reactionary, with no understanding of fiscal realities and no sense of personal ethics, someone lacking any understanding of constitutional mechanisms of government and a 14 year old bully's view of foreign policy would be a problem of nightmarish proportions for all of the rest of us.

Very well said...you expressed my sentiments exactly...thank you...

[void()]

Possibly a good idea.

[Marriedbi58]

Holy smokes! Politicians lie. Trump is no cure all but he is right about Hillary. She lies about major issues. Benghazi, classified emails, whitewater, and this one. When she stood up and said she didn't know about Bills affairs. They had already had to settle more than one when he was governor of Arkansas. Now either she thinks I and the American public is that dumb or she is that dumb. Either way, I don't want her as president. It would be worse than the last 8 under Obamacare. Think about the entire country and not just our sexual preference.

[12voltyV2.0]

Well, one more post for what it is worth----so far--a growing number of newspapers and other publications----some that do not ever make political endorsements and a handful--that have long been favorable to the Republican Party and either NEVER or rarely endorsed a Democratic Party candidate for president---among this groups includes the Cincinnati Enquirer, which last endorsed a Democrat for president 100 years ago, came out for Hilary Clinton and against Donald Trump, the Arizona Republic----which has NEVER endorsed a Democrat, came out for Clinton and against Trump, the same for the Dallas Morning News.

USA Today has never endorsed any candidate of either party, but while they did not endorse Clinton, they clearly came out against Trump.

Now---the Atlantic Magazine---a highly respected magazine--that began publication in the Civil War era---had up to this point---only endorsed two candidates--one was Abraham Lincoln, the other was Lyndon B. Johnson---with that endorsement being more against Barry Goldwater than a full throated endorsement of Johnson.

Now, in 2016, they have come out to give a lukewarm endorsement of Hilary Clinton but with a scathing indictment of why their editorial board believes that Donald Trump does not in any way qualify to become our next president.

I have to agree with them 100%. They said it rather well.

Here is the pertinent part as to why they feel that Trump is not qualified and should not be elected our next president.

"Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

These concerns compel us, for the third time since the magazine’s founding, to endorse a candidate for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.

Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy. But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.

In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

Well said, I am glad that these people did their duty as a journalistic enterprise, to state quite clearly, exposing what they feel is very real danger to America---that Donald Trump represents.

The words written by the Cincy Enquirer, Dallas Morning News and The Arizona Republic were all very similar---but I liked that the editorial board of the Enquirer used a phrase in regards to Donald Trump, calling him a "Clear and Present Danger" to the nation.

General Thomas Hayden, who served in a variety of capacities in our intelligence and national security "apparatus" having served as head of the CIA, head of the National Security Agency, National Security Coordinator and several other such high level roles--having served in such roles since the administration of George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush into the early days of Barack Obama becoming president. He warns that he feels that should Trump become president----he will do something that will lead to a "Constitutional Crisis" in that he might issue orders to our military---that the leaders would be hard pressed to do since those orders could be profoundly unconstitutional.

But with Trump---forget all these high flying issues like national security, national defense, intelligence and counter terrorism----in the bottom line---Donald Trump is profoundly profane, vulgar, nasty, a bully--in short--he is simply a DEPLORALBE and DESPICABLE individual.

[biguy1940]

She's a cunt, period!

so is he, if you're looking at character...oh, wait...is that the same as a pussy ?.../sn

[void()]

Well, one more post for what it is worth
...
a DEPLORALBE and DESPICABLE individual.

Wife and me have taken a stance of generally ignoring mainstream media, current events. It has been speculated and proven to be a weapon for such as the C.I.A, N.S.A, F.B.I and the whole host of alphabet agencies of a corporately owned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA government. No, that is not tin foil hat talk rather it is factual reality as far as what we consider reality.

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

---
Edward Bernays Propaganda (1928)

It is through using media an entity or agency may influence religious belief. This is because most religious ideas rely upon what are called mystery plays which are teaching, indoctrination aids for conveying morality, ethics to the masses as opioid fear and superstition/s. Once you control religion, education follows suit and is conquered to your will. You can then teach stupidity via neglect of teaching critical thinking. Children are always reared accordingly with their society's cult-ure based upon the religious notions of the parents striving to be traditional, keeping up with the Jones'.At that point you can wrest control of finances and capture the STATE intact. This is a manner in which one achieves what Sun Tzu describes as fighting without fighting, winning despite an opponent's best efforts as there is no way to escape. All warfare is based upon deception and all warfare is waged for the sake of bankers. The axiom of follow the money directly proves this out.

For me the news consists of asking a few questions and observing the answers of these.

1. Are people still living and dying? 2. Are people still cheating and stealing? 3. Are people still killing other people?

If the answer is yes to any or all of these, well, there's genuinely nothing I consider newsworthy.

I do enjoy watching few recent new tell lie vision show series what started the Autumn programming season. Falling Water looks to be a promising bit of mild entertainment for the sake of entertainment, not buying into the entertrainment aspect of it, nonetheless it offers amusement. It seems Early American Gothic literature is getting a fresh revision, or at least fresh voices telling stories.

You seeing any good shows on the billet this year, or are you too confined to the puppet theater?

[guywholikesboth]

I suggest you all read Lies by Glen Beck it will open your mind up to what the Progressives have done both Republican and Democrates

[pole_smoker]

Hillary does not like or support LGBT people, black or Latino people, women's rights, and is actually quite conservative politically just like Obama is. Hillary and Bill have taken billions of dollars from Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. where bisexual and gay men are murdered, tortured, executed, and imprisoned, and where girls and women are sex slaves and thought of as lower then dogs.

Obama was nothing but a neo-con in disguise, and it is true as he did completely support the failed policies of George W. Bush, and Hillary wants to continue doing this and destroying the Constitution and Bill of Rights just like Obama has. This is why myself and my husband are voting for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. No it's not "throwing our votes away" or any other nonsense people claim.

[darkeyes]

I will say u lot do have yourselves a right ole dilemma.. Trump or Hil? God help ya! And also rans. I do agree with Poley about voting for an also ran not being a wasted vote.. they will always be also rans if those who believe in the message don't vote on principle and with the heart.

..and think on this.. by the middle of next year the 4 most powerful politicians in the western world may well be women.. Clinton (US), Merkel (Germany), May (UK) and Le Pen (France).. am not saying I would vote for any of them but it is a development of interest if not exactly for great human progress..... reactionaries and fascists are reactionaries and fascists whatever their gender. Other than (possibly) Ange Merkel... the cause of women's equality in the world could well be set back quite considerably.

.. and no.. I wouldn't vote for Trump... he is the most reactionary and dangerous of all...