|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
“I am the king of debt,” Mr. Trump once said on CNN. “I love debt.”
A New York Times investigation into Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's US real-estate holdings revealed that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount that Trump's public filings, made as part of his campaign, show.
Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Mr. Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.
As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.
Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … rties.html
Do you think that's why he won't release his tax returns? Will he do it before Nov? Do you think that's why he's running?
I think most big business operates heavily in debt. That's where their operating funds come from, not from mattresses stuffed with last year's income. Neither his debt nor where it is bothers me - if he can get China to finance his (often failing) businesses it doesn't bother me a bit.
Can't speak for Trump, but if I were him, with all those secret business plans and dealings, I wouldn't make my tax returns public either. It sounds like a very good way to bankrupt most of them. There is also the fact that if he does the general population will jump all over them without having a clue what they mean - we saw it with Obama's birth certificate and we would absolutely see it again. "What? Trump only paid 10,000,000 in taxes?? That isn't near enough for a billionaire - he must be cheating and should be in jail!"
Well I believe he said it was because he is being audited. I don't think any of us has forgotten Lois Lerner and that IRS and how they did things to people based on their party so I can understand that. I mean these people are yet to pay for all that corruption and I hope we get someone besides what we have now to make corruption stop for awhile, don't you? Look at all the play for pay Hillary has done. No two ways or doubts about it and she will only stop if we make her president! How long do we have to put up with this crap? Anything and anybody has got to beat that lying woman that would (if she hasn't already) sold America out for a dime!
Anyone can have their doubts about Trump but we know for a fact what Hillary has done and will do! Terrorists own her and we want her for our leader? Not me, I would choose Pee Wee Herman over that traitor.
The issue is not so much the debt, but the opportunity it provides to gain leverage over Trump. As a current presidential nominee, that's massively concerning.
Trump's a CEO through and through. As a CEO he makes decisions based on what's in the best interests of his business. Sometimes those decisions (like outsourcing manufacturing to China, Mexico etc.) are not in the interests of the country(1)(2). But that's what CEOs do. It's not what presidents do though, and nothing Trump has done indicates he is able to switch from being CEO-Trump to Presidential-Trump. That's a big problem.
If his business is in debt to those affiliated with foreign powers, there is every indication that CEO-Trump will make decisions to protect his business interests. I'm not concerned this will happen. I'm concerned that it is happening.
Separate RNC officials have said Trump’s campaign pushed hard for a change in the GOP platform before the GOP convention. The change softened the GOPs position on Russian aggression in Ukraine. They said "apart from the Ukraine change, Trump’s campaign seemed generally uninterested in the platform altogether"(3).
The concern is that Trump's foreign policy advisors are known to have strong business ties to Russia, and pro-Russian factions (his campaign director Paul Manafort resigned last week because of concerns about those ties)(4)(5). Donald Trump Jr. has also said: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”(6) And this was his campaign director's response to a direct question asking if Trump had financial ties to Russian oligarchs. Are Trump's business interests in Russia behind the change his campaign requested to the GOP position on Russia? That's the question. And what has Trump done to indicate that he would sacrifice his business interests for the sake of the national interest?
The typical answer from supporters is "yeah but . . . Clinton", which I think is a cop out. This is serious and needs to be addressed, and it can be. Examining Trump's tax returns would show to what extent he has financial ties to Russia, and alleviate concerns that Putin or other foreign affiliates have some financial leverage over Trump. Unfortunately, despite every Republican presidential nominee in the last nine cycles releasing their returns, Trump refuses to(7), which in itself only increases the concern.
(1) http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps … -s-a-spin/
(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru … 164c19e09?
(4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … explained/
(5) http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c01989a4 … n-lobbying
(6) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
(7) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/d … rns-226531
"It's not what presidents do though, and nothing Trump has done indicates he is able to switch from being CEO-Trump to Presidential-Trump."
Your fear then is that Trump will not switch his allegiance and become the "CEO" of the country, instead putting his own businesses the top priority as Clinton has done? The comment that there is nothing showing he will do so is rather a red herring; not only is there nothing showing he won't, the only thing that would indicate that he would is to already have been President. There is also the matter of conflict of interests and the law:
"Initially, it should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation. There are now uniform statutory requirements for the establishment and maintenance of blind trusts, and federal officials
who are to use such devices, either voluntarily or as a remedial measure for identified conflicts of interest, must receive from their supervisory ethics office prior approval of the proposed trustee and the trust instrument to qualify the blind trust for ethics purposes. "
While I'm positive both his political AND business opponents would dearly love to get their greedy little hands on his tax returns, he would be an absolute fool to make his business dealings public.
The law cannot resolve the conflict of interest:
"In a 2014 report on conflicts of interest in the executive branch, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that the criminal statute requiring officials to recuse themselves from government matters in which they have a financial interest 'expressly excludes the president and vice president.'" (1)
"The US president and vice president are not subject to laws that apply to nearly all other federal officials."(2)
"If Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, wins the general election in November, he would still be allowed to oversee operations and collect income from the more than 500 businesses he's listed in a personal financial disclosure form filed with the Federal Election Commission."(3)
To see this in action: the lawyer for the Trump Organization sent a cease and desist letter to an organization that criticized Trumps policy positions. His lawyer said the letter “was the result of what we believe were certain misleading and outright false statements which we were concerned could potentially cause damage to Mr. Trump’s reputation and business interests.” (4)
So the issue is not whether there would be a conflict of interests. The issue is whether Trump is able to resolve that conflict of interest in favor of the country rather than his business. It doesn't look promising:
1. His overtures to Russia. There is a case to be made for normalizing relations with Russia, but suggesting Russia does not have troops in Ukraine goes way beyond that. Pandering to Putin as he invades neighbouring countries is not in the interests of the country, but it is in the interests of Trump's business empire. He's made no secret of his desire to do business in Russia.
2. He put his presidential campaign on hold to go to Scotland and promote his personal business interests(6). Apparently running for president is not as important as promoting his business. While there he talked about Brexit mainly in relation to the benefits it would have on his business. That's not a good indicator of priorities.
3. To my knowledge (and yours apparently) he has never done anything for the sake of public service. Nada. Nothing. I asked you previously if you were aware of anything in his life I had missed, and you replied "you haven't missed a thing". So has he shown any ability to change form? Any at all? He can't even reign in his mouth (to the frustration of his own campaign advisors). What is the likelihood he will suddenly develop a spirit of public service, which inspires him to sacrifice his business interests for the sake of the country? Slim to none if his current behaviour is anything to go by.
You want to know what indicates he is likely to sell the country down the river for the sake of a "good deal"? Choose almost anything he has said or done.
(1) http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t … story.html
(2) http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-donald- … 1467648595
(3) https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles … -a-walmart
(4) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /73409764/
(5) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … tsche-bank
(6) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/polit … conflicts/
That a President doesn't have to distance himself from his (or her) business interests is troubling. But at the same time, I guess we've lived with it for 200 years, so maybe it isn't the problem it seems. The president does not, after all, make law.
Trump has business in Russia - so what? We don't complain about Clinton getting money from all over the world (including Russia) - why the concern about Trump? Of course, we also don't use such loaded words as "pandering" in connection with Clinton - is that the difference? Loaded words, insinuating what might or might not be there?
Yep - he put it on hold, at least to some degree. Just as actual Presidents have done for years when they go play golf or off on vacation. Your point? That he should be working on his election 24/7?
Changing "form" isn't what you're asking for in putting the country over business. It's what you want him to do, whether business concerns are operative or not, but has nothing to do with using his position to further his businesses. A red herring, then - just another complaint on another matter.
You're still wanting Trump to have already shown he will do as required, without his ever having been in the position to do so. That seems just a trifle unrealistic, don't you think? I will point out, though, that his recent trip to Louisiana shows promise.
That he will build a wall shows making a personal good deal? Dealing with the illegal alien problem? Provide jobs nationwide? Stop Obamacare? I would say "No" to all of these. So what has he said that indicates he is looking for a good business deal out of being President at the expense of the country - put the shoe on the other foot and YOU provide some conversations indicating that what you fear is likely to be actual.
Did you donate to Trump? Are you at all disappointed that he is spending much of his campaign contributions on himself and his children? I'd be a bit peeved to donate to a candidate only to discover he was taking my money and enriching himself with it instead of using it to fight the other candidate.
I presume you have sneaked a peak at the bookkeeping records of his campaign? Or is that just more mud without any basis in truth?
The information is available in his public campaign filings.
Really? His public campaign filings says he is taking contributions to entertain, or even feed, himself or his children?
I don't believe you.
I'll provide two links. The first I provided to show the right-wing view. The second is the left-wing. I think the conclusion from both is that much of the contributions to his campaign go to pay his own companies. Whether you feel that is appropriate or not, is up to you.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president … ec-filing/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru … 51368a82b9
The first says Trump pays his companies, at fair market rates, for the services he receives.
The second says the same thing, with a decided spin trying to indicate that he personally gets $165,000 for the rent for office space. It is false in that insinuation, but it is an effect political lie unless one actually reads it.
Neither even tries to say that he is simply taking campaign funds for his personal use or that of his children; any money either he or his companies get has been in the form of fair market return for services/products rendered.
Would you suggest then that he hire a different company? Costs would almost certainly go up - he already pays less for that rent than Clinton does and hires far fewer employees to raise money - but would that be the proper thing to do? Bear in mind that his personal money put into the campaign is far, far less than his companies will ever take out, and those monies must be split with partners as you answer.
Personally, were I in Trump's shoes I would use my own companies whenever a different one was not clearly superior or cheaper and he appears to be quite scrupulous in that. If you wish to see that as wrong somehow that is up to you, but I suspect it is nothing more than invented mud to sling against someone you don't like.
Notice I gave you information for you to make up your own mind on both sides. I just think that given the campaign has been flailing, seems woefully understaffed, and hasn't even started advertising, these expenditures, which basically just move money from contributors to Trump's businesses, would be of some concern to his supporters. If not, no problem.
Your criticism that Trump's campaign is "flailing," and seems "woefully understaffed" seems to come from a comparison of other "typical" political campaigns. Is that wrong? If not, surely you don't consider Trump a typical candidate.
And since Trump is already dominating the political news airways - able to personally delivery the messages ad campaigns would be designed to deliver, why do you think not spending money to advertise is a bad thing?
Concerning buying from his own companies; as Wilderness has pointed out, it is a legitimate exchange of money for goods and services. Just as it would be if he made the same exchange with any other company. Don't you think it is a bit of spin to characterize it as just moving money from contributors to his own businesses? I am assuming of course that these purchased goods and services don't fit the mold of peg-boot contracts . Is there information that indicates they are?
Just one comment about Trump using his own companies to provide goods and services. It is typical for organizations that accept donations to be good stewards of the money that is given to them. To that end, it is crucial that expenditures be reasonable and that contracting with other companies for goods and services be justifiable.. Typically, large contracts would be put out to bid and an appropriate vendor be selected based on many factors, including cost and expertise. Perhaps the Trump campaign has done this
Since I have not donated to his campaign and won't be voting for him anyway, i don't care but others might find his use of his own companies to be unethical even if not illegal.
Hello again PrettyPanther, Relative to this topic, I think your "organizations" needs the adjective "political" attached to it. Then I think the donor's expectations might be different. Your description would fit government and charitable organizations, (tax monies and legal requirements in the case of government), but I think political supporter donations are given with less thought of use restrictions - barring the extremes of course.
ps. "others" might find a political candidate even owning other businesses unethical or illegal too. Mitt Romney's campaign comes to mind.
"...but others might find his use of his own companies to be unethical even if not illegal."
They already do. Without knowing what has gone on, without knowing if it actually was unethical or not, without ever investigating whether expenditures were financially wise, it is still found to be unethical (and probably illegal as well). Knowledge of what was spent or why is not necessary to make such a call when the objective is to throw mud at someone we don't like.
Raising the question is not the same as condemning, but however you look at it, it's completely valid to examine how a presidential candidate spends money that is donated to their campaign.
Very true. But the question was not only raised, but condemned as well...without ever answer the questions asked. Both by Sychophantastic (who said he was taking contributions for himself and his children) and by the second link she gave (strongly implying there was something wrong with paying less than his opponents for office rent).
His expenditures absolutely need to be examined, but "examined" is a key word here. It doesn't mean to shout them out while condemning them without a shred of information on why it was spent or even if value received was close to costs.
Read the second link she gave and then tell me how much space he rented. What the price per foot was, and what the going rate in the area is. He is condemned for spending it, but what did he buy with that money?
Okay, I hear you. You're quibbling over how the questioning of the funds is presented, not the questioning itself. Unfortunately, people have their inherent emotional responses to the candidates, which will come out when they perceive an impropriety on the part of the candidate they dislike. Human nature, and it works both ways. Surely, you've noticed entire threads condemning Hillary for things that have never been proven, as well as for things that have been investigated and for which she has been cleared.
Anyway, it seems we basically agree that it is valid to question how a candidate spends funds.
No, I'm quibbling because the questions were presented as doing something wrong without ever even attempting to answer them. We see this all the time, from political mud to cop shootings and it's really tiresome.
Yeah, I see the threads about Clinton, too. Sometimes just skip over them, sometimes answer in the same vein as here. Just posted this morning that all the murders she supposedly committed are crap.
I'ts not only valid to question candidates spending of donated funds, it's necessary. Maybe someone should look into just why Clinton has 3X as many people raising funds as Trump does (from Syco's link) - the obvious answer that Trump provides so much more of his own funds might be a little too pat.
Yes, you gave links to both sides. And both sides said the same thing, with the liberal side adding in spin indicating that it must be wrong, somehow, to use the businesses he chooses to use.
It is true that he isn't advertising to the extent his opponents are; instead he spends his own money. He is "understaffed", compared to Clinton, for the same reason - he isn't spending most of the contributions in salaries for people begging for even more money. I don't see that as wrong - do you?
But you never indicated whether you feel it would be "right" to give contributors (or his own) money to the owners and workers of other businesses rather to the ones he owns. Do you have an opinion here, and if so can you explain it? Remember, he is not the President, giving his own businesses preferential treatment; that would indeed be both illegal (I think) and very unethical. Instead, he is a private citizen, choosing where to spend his money. Can you support the idea that he should choose businesses he doesn't own, simply because he doesn't own them?
GA Anderson and Wilderness - complete reasonable points. I do think it creates an ethical question, but given the race, ethical questions don't really matter much. The classical thinking is that because Trump is not putting money into a "ground game", he's going to lose. Instead, he's putting money into his own companies for services rendered to the campaign - paying himself. Actually, that's fine since he's got employees he's got to pay. However, for a campaign that was supposed to be self-funded, it's interesting. That said, this is worth a watch:
It was cute Sychophantastic, but I honestly don't see a connection. Why do you see it as worth a watch relative to this discussion?
And about that "classical thinking"... Can you really see the justification for that relative to the effort of running a presidential campaign to get the profit benefits of one-time campaign paraphernalia and services sales for a few of his companies? I can't.
I think the only thing classical about it is its use as political fodder.
Absolutely no relationship to the topic at hand. Though interesting given Giuliani's comment that the validity of Hillary's health crisis can be googled easily.
I should mention that I have donated to Trump's campaign and am disturbed by how he's spending his money.
It's very troubling. Donald Trump's business holdings represents the greatest conflict of interest of any presidential nominee in recent history.
Having business in Russia is one thing. Praising Putin while he invades a neighbouring pro-democracy country is another. That's pandering. Softening the GOP platform which is traditionally hawkish on Russia (and rightly so in my opinion) is pandering. Announcing that you might not come to the aid of a NATO ally if it were attacked by Russia, is pandering. Describing the despot Putin as a "great leader" is pandering.
He didn't just put his campaign on hold, he put it on hold so he could promote his business. So he can't even campaign for the presidency without stopping to promote his personal business interests. That says something about his priorities. It's something you would expect from a CEO. Not what you would expect (or want) from a presidential nominee. Again, it's massively concerning that all we see is CEO-Trump. The country does not need a president who is more interested in promoting his own business interests than the interests of the country. Unfortunately Trump is legally allowed to do exactly that.
There are lots of ways to demonstrate public service without having been president. I'm asking for an example of where Trump has done that. The wall isn't one of them. Have you stopped to wonder why the CEO of a conglomerate that delivers massive building projects, is so keen on a policy that requires the delivery of a massive building project? A desire to do public service? But there is nothing Trump has done in his life, that I can see, that was not about self-promotion, or for the benefit of his business. Why should I, or anyone else, believe the Great Wall of America™ is not just another example of the wheeling and dealing he has done throughout his life for for the benefit of Donald J. Trump and his business interests? The most people can say is that they don't know whether Trump is suggesting such a wall for the sake of the country, or for the sake of his building businesses? Surely that's not acceptable.
By running for office, Trump and his campaign are asserting that he would make decisions based on what is in the national interest (as is the president's responsibility), or as a minimum that he is capable of doing that. So the burden is on Trump to demonstrate those positive assertions, not on me to demonstrate the negative. There is no evidence that Trump is interested in anything other than his own business interests. I've asked for some, but so far no one has been able to produce any.
Very well articulated.
The right wing has been coveting the crazies, uneducated, racists, and religious zealots. Trump has had to move over to that end to secure that vote.
However, and to be less mean, Trump is the result of the GOP's worship of business. In other words (and this isn't necessarily a bad thing), many prefer a businessman, any businessman, to any politician. Given how politicians operate, I can see why. However, Gary Johnson is a businessman too, but not nearly so mean.
"Again, it's massively concerning that all we see is CEO-Trump."
How easily you push aside the 99% of his time spent as Presidential Nominee, declaring that all there is is CEO.
"Have you stopped to wonder why the CEO of a conglomerate that delivers massive building projects, is so keen on a policy that requires the delivery of a massive building project?"
Probably because that's what he is most familiar with. Rather than wheeling and dealing in the back rooms on the Hill, figuring how to keep himself in power, he does something. A builder, not just a talker.
During the time he has been a presidential nominee he has not said or done anything that indicates he would put the national interest before his personal business interests.
Yes, he's most familiar with being a CEO. That wouldn't be a problem if he demonstrated he could switch from that to being a president, but he hasn't. All the pandering to Russia indicates he would not put the national interest before his business interests.
You haven't given a single good reason why anyone should believe Trump would put the country first if he were president. I can't understand why the massive conflict of interest is acceptable to you, or any Trump supporters. Is building a wall and deporting people really that important to you?
And I repeat: Trump has done nothing to indicate he won't change the CEO cap for the President one. He's never had the chance to do so, or even the cap of "representative".
And you haven't given a single good reason why anyone should believe Trump would NOT put the country first if he were president. Just actions taken when he was NOT the president, and that's a whole different matter: few people do when they aren't on the hot seat.
It's acceptable because that's the law. It's what every President has done. If it's unacceptable to you then you need to organize to change the law, not make accusations you can't even start to back up.
And yes, building a wall and deporting (or reasonable facsimile of both) IS that important. It is a major thorn in our side and causes major damage to the country and the people. It's certainly more important than claiming Trump will put business before country and therefore should not be president, and doubly so when you can provide no reason to say it other than he has never had the opportunity to do otherwise.
When someone applies for a job it's not up to the person hiring to demonstrate the candidate can't do the job, it's up to the candidate to demonstrate they can, even if it's a job they've never done before. So it's up to Trump to demonstrate he can do the job of president. It's not up to me to demonstrate he can't.
Nothing Trump has said or done demonstrates he would challenge Russia (for example) if it acted against the national interest, but meant a good deal for him personally. Even you, as a Trump supporter, can't point to anything Trump has ever said or done in his life that indicates he would sacrifice a good deal for a greater good. Yet there are many things that indicate he wouldn't (can't?). You share his desire to build a wall and deport people, which you believe is important, but that one issue doesn't indicate Trump would make a good president.
If someone applied for an entry level engineering job, you'd expect them to be able to demonstrate an aptitude in engineering. If there was nothing they could point to that indicated such aptitude, they would be considered a poor candidate. There is nothing you can point to that indicates Donald J. Trump is capable of sacrificing his personal business interests for the sake of . . . anything. Even if you ignore that, that still doesn't leave any reason to vote for him accept the fact that you share his desire for a Great Wall of America™ and mass deportations (though he might be walking back on those slightly(1)). Are those your main reasons for supporting Trump? If so, that speaks volumes.
(1) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/d … all-227335
The way you stop illegal immigration is you punish companies for hiring illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs, there are no illegal immigrants.
"Delusional Donald" also has EXPLICIT Plans to "Default" on the DEBT of the United States of AMERICA which would be nothing LESS than Catastrophic for the USA while very ADVANTAGEOUS for Vladimir Putin & Communist RUSSIA ~ EVERY Reputable FINANCIAL Expert has WARNED Against allowing Trump to get anywhere NEAR Our FINANCEs ~ Just take a good look at ALL his HIGHLY Leveraged FAILUREs such as the BANKRUPT "Trump Taj Mahal" in Jersey etc ~ D*A*N*G*E*R*O*U*S ~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don … e9f0917fac
Another VALID Reason as to WHY Donald is CONCEALING his TAX RETURNs from "We the PEOPLE" might be due to the FACT that he, Donald Junior & Ivanka have been NAMED in a Gargantuan $250 MILLION Tax Scam involving his Properties & who else but a CORRUPT Russian Individual ~ ~ U can't SCRIPT this in HOLLYWOOD though many have tried ~ Trumps' a 2-BIT Con Man LOSER & just about everyone on WALL Street knows this ~
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … -case.html
Wow we are doomed then since that only leaves us with Hillary, an habitual liar that no doubt already has America sold out to the highest bidder in terror territory. We can guess at what Donald is but Hillary has been proven on paper and just because this corrupt government whose soul purpose has been to destroy America has not made her pay fro her crimes, does not make her one ounce less guilty! She does not even qualify to run for president. Who would have ever dreamed America would allow a criminal who has funded terrorist who scream "death to America!" to even think about leading us to our demise? Which is exactly what it will be with her at the helm. God forgive you all who are upholding her and enabling her. You surely have been given blinders, unaware. What other reason could you have for doing this? You surely can't all be getting a free phone and college education.
Unlike "Delusional Donald" & DESPITE what Right WING Nutjob Networks like FOX Loser & Breitbart FALSELY Claim over there in "Republican PRETEND-Land", you'll find very little in relation to COURT Documents FILED Against her because she has Committed NO TORTs nor Crimes ~
In STARK Comparison, "Drumpfy" Trump & Family have been involved in a RECORD Number of LAW Suits, as REPORTED Approximately 3,500, some of which were Gargantuan "FRAUD" Cases which he was FORCED to SETTLE & one which includes a "RICO Attachment" for CORRUPTION that is Currently PENDING for Adjudication with a TRIAL Date set for NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ~ NOT to mention a Gigantic TAX Evasion SCAM where he & Children are NAMED ~
Anyone Interested in who TRULY is the Pathological LIAR? Should have been Visiting "FACTCheck" Periodically to find the TRUTH ~ "Delusional Donald" has ACHIEVED that "Dubious HONOR" throughout his Pseudo-Campaign ~
P.S. ~ When U have Nefarious PLANs to INTENTIONALLY Default on the United States DEBT as Donald has according to REPORTs, you will ACCOMPLISH what Communist Russia & Terrorist ORGANIZATIONs have been Plotting for DECADEs ~ WHY do U think he's SINKING fast in the POLLs? It's not only his HATRED of Women & Minorities, Disdain for OUR Military & Veterans, or his OVERT Racism & Bigotry etc, it's ALSO his Dangerous PLANs to APPEASE Russia ~I would suggest that everyone do some RESEARCH on the Subject ~
When anyone claims Hillary after using devices with top secret information which it has been proven she did and the money she and Bill took from countries for favors she gave them tries to claim it did not happen then you are a liar just as clearly as she is and long words and big paragraphs does not change the facts. When she takes this country completely under and you along with it I hope you can remember the disservice you did covering for one of if not the most corrupt person in US government ever. May God prevent this evil from coming on this country although it could well be too late even if she loses. What all has she done or sold that we don't know about?
What about Hillary taking money from Muslim countries who would just as soon kill a woman as look at her and rape children including boys. She loves them and takes their money and what do they get in return? Did this 400 million have anything to do with her? I would not doubt it and her running mate thinks we should be just like these Muslim women so I assume Hillary does too and they are down on the white race as if we are to blame for all racism and she is all for killing unborn babies all the way to the being born point not to mention the evil she did years ago to that little girl who was raped and she made her out to be a man lover desiring to be raped and got the man off and laughed about it later. She is evil not just bad or wrong, but evil to the core. I could have put this all in capital letters but since I am telling the truth I think it stands very stark against that woman I do not even consider human! She sold her soul somewhere far back and there is no real human in that body possibly why it spouts so many lies and has uncontrollable movement? Possession? It would not surprise me.
Do you realize you're a gullible idiot or is it the product of homeschooling? I mean, it's truly astonishing. And you, of course, realize that the ridiculous photo there with Hillary and Osama Bin Laden is photoshopped, right? In other words, it's a fake. But you believe it?
Where do you live that you know nothing about what Hillary has been up to? Home school may be better than government brainwashing although I am a little old for home school; I do highly recommend it.
You know all I have said is true but you like most liberals just think if you like Hillary lie long enough it will soon all be under the rug but many of us, and some ex-liberals like myself, will not lie for her. If she is the best there is for the Democrats then it is time for another choice.
Now they are finding voter fraud that Obama should not even have been in the running and I am sure they will uncover what Hillary is up to in that venue now with her little illegals running around pulling another scam. I just hope it all unloads in time to save this country from her.
You've been duped by your so-called information so many times that you'd think you'd start to question its validity. Obama made the pledge of allegiance illegal! Massive voter fraud! Obama is a Muslim! Hillary is dying!
As a liberal, I believe in every adult person's right to vote, but as a flawed human being, sometimes I wish we had to display a minimum level of critical thinking ability and knowledge of civics in order to vote.
Ah, but if only.
Will never happen. Liberals would instantly lose 90% or their voter base. If they can't keep up the fiction that violating the 2nd amendment will save lives and that wealth redistribution will solve poverty they haven't much to offer.
LOL, I think it would be the other way around, but okay. We each have our own perceptions, don't we?
Well, as critical thinking cannot be applied to religion, and as much of conservatism is based on religion, I would estimate that no more than 85% of their voter base would disappear. Maybe only 80% - they get to keep their own fiction that being gay is wrong and evil, after all!
Wilderness, I disagree with you on a lot of things, but you deserve credit for a lot of independent thinking.
Thank you. It's true that I make a very poor political flak for either party - I don't find much need for an ignorant politician somewhere to decide things for me and I find that neither party is superior to the other in matters of ethics or morality. They're all scumbags!
I agree, there are many who neither have the discernment nor intellectual ability to vote. There also should be IQ & LOGIC tests to assess voting ability.
That is the wrong approach, Reminds me of the poll tests of old. Voting is your right as an adult American citizen.
Voting shouldn't be right but a privilege. There are far too many rights for people who simply have no cognizance of them. Many people aren't intellectually qualified to vote hence they shouldn't vote.
Have to agree with credence on this one. As much as I would like to inflict my snooty judgment upon who should and shouldn't vote, I know it is wrong for anyone to do so.
Who gets to decide who is 'qualified'? This concept opens up the potential for much abuse. This is the kind of stuff the rightwingers peddle and I know that you are not associated with THEM...
Be careful now, if we did what you suggest the GOP would simply cease to exist......
So right and now Hillary is trying to blame Colin Powell for her using illegal devices for US top secret material but he is not backing her up! Good for him to call her the liar she is!
Both Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice used private email servers. The problem is something endemic to the State Department. And, it was not illegal. And she didn't send top secret material.
Colin Powell said yes he had private servers that he used but not that he sent business emails on. Don't you believe what the man says? You would rather take the word of a woman who says she has been under sniper fire and still denies what the whole world knows she has done. Lying must be a common practice in the Democratic party so that you just don't know the difference. Even when proven to you. I imagine there is a big meeting place for you all one day...I won't be there.
Now I will click unfollow and leave you all to it, lie all you want.
You are going to BUST that meeting place......WIDE OPEN.........
P.S. the subject is Donald Trump & his millions of debt, not Hillary Clinton. The issue regarding Hillary Clinton is....OVER.....NEXT!
You have proven yourself not that smart. I hear somebody like you blathering on some street corner, I just keep walking. Believe all the conspiracy theories you want. It fundamentally defines you as a moron. Good luck!
P.S. I love the sniper fire thing. That was what, 1994? Yes, she made that up in 2008. However, it's reasonable to assume that she wasn't remembering correctly 14 years later about an incident where she was briefed about sniper fire. She retracted the statement. Do I believe she said that for political advantage? Most likely. People's memories aren't all that good 14 years later. What do you remember from 14 years ago? However, if it makes you feel good, that was certainly a lie.
I was unable to find what the rules were when Powell or Rice were in office, but did find this:
"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time <of Clintons tenure> required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records." and
"Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. "
As far as Powell goes: "Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/po … .html?_r=0
Apparently it was also specifically illegal to send classified information from unsecured servers, which Clinton most certainly did.
Most certainly it seems stupid.
The last part has been blown out of proportion. I think Clinton's explanation is that she didn't know she was sending classified material. She didn't send anything explicitly marked classified in the subject line. There's this thing about the (c) that she should have recognized. However, it was not the standard way to communicate that something was classified, as I understand it.
Anyway, I agree that the whole episode seems like something you should not be doing or even considering if you're Secretary of State.
JL simply loves conjecture & hyperbole. Logic & reason are Yakut to her. She is quite adept at conjecture & hyperbole, in fact, she has a Ph.D. in these subjects.............................
If this were true - "I am the King of debt ", he would fit right into OBAMA"S spending frenzy with adding more debt to the country than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDNTS COMBINED !
Liberals actually critique anything about political economics ? WOW !
BOTTOM Line ~ The INVESTIATION Uncovered the FACT that "Delusional Donald" has Accrued at LEAST 650 MILLION in DEBT ~ This is a Minimum LIABILITY & It could be Much MORE given his HISTORY of RECKLESS & Incompetent Business Practices~ ~
Still don't think Donald is a 2-Bit CON-Man ?? ~ What will it take for Y'all to see the LIGHT ?? ~ And Yup, still NO Tax Returns to be FOUND nor PROOF of his "IRS AUDIT"~ Gee, I wonder WHY ?? ~
Trump used family charity to settle lawsuits against his businesses
On four occasions, The Donald J. Trump Foundation cut checks to settle suits -- a controversial and potentially illegal tactic given that the Foundation is funded primarily with other donors' money, not his, according to the Post review of legal documents and interviews.
Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses.
In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.
In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.
In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.
The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Trump used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting his chain of hotels in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Trump spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money for a portrait of himself bought at a charity fundraiser.
Or, rather, another portrait of himself.
Several years earlier, Trump had used $20,000 from the Trump Foundation to buy a different, six foot-tall portrait.
by Alternative Prime19 months ago
SORRY to be one of many Messengers for the seemingly "Perpetual Avalanche" of “GRIM News” pertaining to this guy, but in REALITY, he brought it all unto himself & the General Public must be INFORMED ~...
by Alternative Prime18 months ago
HONESTLY, what would U Expect from a Deranged “Communist Sympathizer? ~ Yup, Believe it or NOT, it’s TRUE & just one more reason of an ENDLESS Menu of REASONs WHY “Delusional Donald” Trump Continues to...
by Sychophantastic22 months ago
Do you care?This would be the first time in modern American history that a candidate for President hasn't released his tax returns. Is this a big deal or not? If it is a big deal, what do you think Donald Trump is...
by PrettyPanther2 years ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … ogyny.htmlThis:"Donald Trump holds one core belief. It’s not limited government. He favored a state takeover of health care before he was against it. Nor is it...
by Randy Godwin20 months ago
What's hidden in Trump's Income Tax returns?Since there's so much speculation by Trump supporters about Hillary's supposed illegal woes-even if she hasn't been convicted or charged with anything--I'm looking for those...
by Susie Lehto15 months ago
"Isn't it strange that so many media outlets are now condemning Wikileaks for doing what journalist used to do?"WikiLeaks’ Email Exposes Billionaire Globalist Soros as Hillary Clinton’s Puppet MasterRead...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.