Trump - Make America Great Again!

[DBS1970]

Beware the Millitary-Industrial Complex.

 

[diver]

Sure the typos are unfortunate, but are you denying the historical fact Reagan paid randsom to Iran for our hostages? He admitted doing so himself, sounds like you're in full denial.

How sure can you be that those are factual if the writer can't even proofread his work? Are you kidding me? Unfortunate?

I've have heard about a court case or two that appeared to be clear cut thrown out over typos.

 

[Tibs]

How sure can you be that those are factual if the writer can't even proofread his work? Are you kidding me? Unfortunate? I've have heard about a court case or two that appeared to be clear cut thrown out over typos.

Man, you are something else. Here, check for typos in these articles, maybe, just maybe some of them are legit.

U.S. Has Taught Iran a Lesson: Hostage-Taking Pays
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-03/u-s-has-taught-iran-a-lesson-hostage-taking-pays

And yet, when it comes to Iran at least, ransom payments are standard operating procedure. It goes back to the Reagan administration. In the early 1980s, Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy in Lebanon, had taken several Americans hostage. In 1984, the Reagan administration began what it had hoped was an opening to Iranian moderates (sound familiar?). Eventually, that secret diplomacy turned into a deal to exchange anti-tank missiles from Israel for the release of hostages in Lebanon. The profits from the arms sale later went to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, but that's another story.

Reagan didn't get his story straight at first. In an address in November 1986 he acknowledged the arms sale, but insisted it was not part of a deal to free the hostages. By March 1987, Reagan came clean to the American people and acknowledged the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran.

HEADLINE: U.S. SENT IRAN ARMS FOR HOSTAGE RELEASES; WEAPONS WERE SUPPLIED FOR AID IN FREEING 3 IN LEBANON, GOVERNMENT SOURCES SAY
http://www.mia.org.il/archive/861106lat.html

The Reagan Administration, using an Israeli-operated supply line set up through highly secret negotiations with the regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, last year began supplying U.S.-made missiles and weapons parts to Iran in exchange for Iran's aid in freeing Americans held hostage in Lebanon, government sources said Wednesday.

http://europe.newsweek.com/obama-reagan-trading-hostages-iran-487314?rm=eu

The scandal stained the president’s reputation, after he went before the American people and proclaimed, “We did not—repeat—did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.” But four months later, he admitted that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs.”

The final outcome of the arms-for-hostages disaster was two U.S. citizens released (the Reverend Benjamin Weir and the Reverend Lawrence Jenco) and two new hostages taken (Frank Reed and Joseph Cicippio).

In exchange for no net gain in released U.S. citizens, Reagan authorized the delivery to Iran—from U.S.-supplied Israeli stockpiles—the following advanced weapons:

August 20, 1985: 96 TOW missiles

September 14, 1985: 408 TOW missiles

November 24, 1985: 18 HAWK missiles

February 18, 1986: 500 TOW missiles

February 27, 1986: 500 TOW missiles

May 25, 1986: HAWK spare parts

August 3, 1986: HAWK spare parts

October 28, 1986: 500 TOW missiles

Ransom for Hostages: Have We Forgotten Ollie, Fawn and Iran Contra?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-lichtenstein/ransom-for-hostages-have-_b_5447806.html

Let’s see if I can remember this correctly: Ronald Reagan not only agreed to pay ransom for 66 Americans being held hostage in the Mideast (Iran). It’s believed he negotiated for Iran to hold the hostages until just after he was inaugurated as president. And then because he couldn’t give Iran what they wanted (arms) he laundered the weapons through Central America... about which his underlings, working in the basement of the White House, then lied to Congress. But not before shredding some evidence and concealing other evidence in their underwear (Fawn Hall). After which the chief operative said Reagan knew everything.

 

[Tibs]

And as far as the current situation which you - along with others here at Trump Central - have completely misrepresented, you probably want to read this:

Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

And as far as the current situation which you - along with others here at Trump Central - have completely misrepresented, you probably want to read this:

Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

Why we owed it is completely irrelevant to the fact that it was returned in such a way and time as to secure the release of the hostage, AKA "Ransom".
You are hiding your ******* head in the sand and blowing rainbows out your *** if you think otherwise.

 

[Steeltime]

Tibs:

Reagan traded arms to a middle-man, who then sent the arms to Iran and where the United States then used the money to fund Nicaragua's opposition forces. That led to a criminal investigation of what became known as Iran-Contra. Reagan was investigated by a special prosecutor, who felt that there was not enough to indict, but Reagan acknowledged his mistake and apologized for his actions.

So you are saying Bammy should be investigated by a special prosecutor? Is that what you are saying?

Obama clearly violated United States policy by sending plane load of cash to bring about the release of American hostages. The facts for the payout to Iran are these:

Pastor Saeed Abedini, who was among four Americans released this past Jan. 17, told Fox Business he wound up waiting for an extended time for the second plane to reach the Iranian capital and was never told why the arriving aircraft was so important. “I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there, and I asked police, ‘Why are you not letting us go?’ ” Abedini said. “He said, ‘We are waiting for another plane so if that plane doesn’t come, we never let [you] go.’ ”

http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/hostage-we-waited-for-2nd-plane-to-land-in-iran-before-leaving/

So will Obama have the decency to apologize for his obvious mistake?

 

[diver]

Tibs, man. You can bring all the negative Trump stuff on here you want. Bring it all day. The reason it doesn't resonate, at least with me, is the fact that if it was another guy, they would be ripping him just as much. Maybe different stuff, but just as much. I was a Cruz guy. Voted for him in the PA primary. But if he was the nominee? It might be as bad if not worse. The establishment hated Cruz as much if not more. And Democrats, ****, they never debate ideas. They just don't. All they do is rip apart the Republican candidate. The Republicans could run a Mother Theresa and the Democrats would find something. Birth control. Abortion, Who knows?

 

[Steeltime]

The Republicans could run a Mother Theresa and the Democrats would find something. Birth control. Abortion, Who knows?

Hey, at least we know that the Democrats will have Mother Teresa vote in the upcoming election. Her being dead and all ...

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Lemme get this straight, pretending it's the same thing, the argument from lefties is that Reagan did something like this, so it's ok?

 

[Tibs]

Lemme get this straight, pretending it's the same thing, the argument from lefties is that Reagan did something like this, so it's ok?

Nope, the facts are that Reagan paid randsom for hostages, which is wrong, and this case is something different, hence not comparable to what Reagan did. They are similar, but this has been public record since January that the $400M has been agreed upon. It is Iranian money that is being refunded on a purchase that never took place. The international courts arbritrated in the case, which again, has been public and transparent from the start.

Again, I understand reading comprehension is not a valued commodity around here, but this article covers the basic points: Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million http://time.com/4441046/400-million-...stage-history/

And I wouldn't refer to it as 'the arguement from the lefties' I would simply call it 'the facts' in this case.

 

[Tibs]

These pesky establishment Republicans, they're like gnats. I wish they'd go away. So annoying, constantly pointing out Donald's shortcomings.

Remember the SN-Trump company line when reading this. None of this matters, everything she writes should be disregarded because she's a Senate Republican who's clearly just looking out for her own personal interests.

GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?tid=a_inl

I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.

When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.

My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.

The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.

The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.

Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.

I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.

I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.

At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major- party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.

Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.

 

[diver]

These pesky establishment Republicans, they're like gnats. I wish they'd go away. So annoying, constantly pointing out Donald's shortcomings.

Remember the SN-Trump company line when reading this. None of this matters, everything she writes should be disregarded because she's a Senate Republican who's clearly just looking out for her own personal interests.

GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?tid=a_inl

Again, they are only pesky if you let them be. You are the only one on here who really seems to give a **** what they say. I don't care. I'd vote for Elmer Fudd over Hillary Clinton. Yep, and old Elmer would have the nuclear codes.

You are not going to change anyone's mind. I will keep saying it, but if another guy was nominated, you'd be here with all these articles on him. So we understand that. Don't try to say this is some righteous indignation over Donald Trump.

 

[Tibs]

This is some righteous indignation over Donald Trump.

 

[Troglodyte]

The reason it doesn't resonate, at least with me, is the fact that if it was another guy, they would be ripping him just as much. Maybe different stuff, but just as much. I was a Cruz guy. Voted for him in the PA primary. But if he was the nominee? It might be as bad if not worse. The establishment hated Cruz as much if not more. And Democrats, ****, they never debate ideas. They just don't. All they do is rip apart the Republican candidate. The Republicans could run a Mother Theresa and the Democrats would find something.

Um, that's politics. The same can be said about Republicans.

What's different with Trump, and you seem oblivious to it, is that his own party is ripping him, including Cruz! And it's not merely the fact that he isn't part of "the establishment" and he makes crude remarks.

First, he is NOT a conservative. He was a democrat less than a decade ago. He is a moderate republican with some radical ideas, none of which involve reducing federal spending.

Secondly, it's not the crude remarks, it's his lack of judgement and impulse control that enable him to make those remarks.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

These pesky establishment Republicans, they're like gnats. I wish they'd go away. So annoying, constantly pointing out Donald's shortcomings.

Remember the SN-Trump company line when reading this. None of this matters, everything she writes should be disregarded because she's a Senate Republican who's clearly just looking out for her own personal interests.

GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump

She's another Republican who might as well be a Democrat. Probably the most Liberal Republican in the Senate. Look in the mirror. It's people like you who caused Trump to win the primary.

 

[Vis]

This graph shows the answer to the generic Congressional ballot question, “This November, do you plan to vote for a Democratic or a Republican candidate in your Congressional district?” This question is highly predictive of the actual popular vote. Also, for each percentage point of movement away from 2014, each party’s seat count should change by about three seats (with some uncertainty).

http://election.princeton.edu/house-polling-margin/

 

[Superman]

Sure the typos are unfortunate, but are you denying the historical fact Reagan paid randsom to Iran for our hostages? He admitted doing so himself, sounds like you're in full denial.

if he did pay a ransom, it was wrong then just as it's wrong now. you're pointing out that it was wrong then, so you must agree that it's wrong now.
where's your article/statement admonishing Obama for putting a price on American lives, thereby making international American travelers less safe?

 

[diver]

Um, that's politics. The same can be said about Republicans.

What's different with Trump, and you seem oblivious to it, is that his own party is ripping him, including Cruz! And it's not merely the fact that he isn't part of "the establishment" and he makes crude remarks.

First, he is NOT a conservative. He was a democrat less than a decade ago. He is a moderate republican with some radical ideas, none of which involve reducing federal spending.

Secondly, it's not the crude remarks, it's his lack of judgement and impulse control that enable him to make those remarks.

First off, I disagree with that, except maybe for this election cycle, which is what has so many of you worked up. You are so used to watching the Republican candidate lied about over his taxes, or saying if he is pro-2nd Amendment he is OK with children being killed, or if he isn't for the health care bill he wants to kill people with cancer or something and them being civil. Trump gives it right back, and it rattles people.

I am not oblivious too it, but I understand it and you do not. You have people who are having their power and influence threatened. It's not just Trump, it was Sanders, too, but he's gone. If Trump wins, this could open the door for these damn voters to continue to vote for people who are not the establishment darlings, and they can't have that. This goes beyond Trump, but all you see is Trump.

To expand that a bit more, one of my issues with Trump is that I wonder if he thinks people are there because of him. This movement was going before Trump ever had a public thought about running. It will be there after he goes. So again, this is a lot less about Trump for me than it is you. It is about the idea of sending a message to the people in power, the only real way we have to send that message short of some type of a revolution. We have been told our whole lives that voting is the way to do that. Well, here we are. Here is our chance.

I don't give a **** if he is not conservative. One would think that would make you at least consider him. I have watched conservatives go to Washington with big talk and big ideas and either get crushed by the establishment or cave. The height of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[diver]

This is some righteous indignation over Donald Trump.

Not from me.

 

[Superman]

for the record, I don't give a flying **** off a wild horse ******** on a rainbow WHY we owed Iran money.
Nor could I possibly give a **** less what some international court deemed appropriate. What were they going to do - stop paying their rent in the UN building?
**** them. Iran is simply NOT an ally, nor a friend in any definition of the word.
we all know precisely what that money will be diverted to and those who touched it will literally have blood on their hands once Iran perfects their Jihad5.0Pedophile Missile to Israel under their stated intent to "wipe Israel off the map". Cry all you ******* want about them not being able to feed their population, but they wouldn't do that even if we sent EBT cards and put McDonald's in every sand dune **** hole within armpit stink of each other.

 

[Spike]

Go Trump! Flush all the ******** out.


Donald J. Trump Statement on Politically Motivated Letter
Trump-Pence ^ | August 8 2016 | Donald J Trump

“The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place. They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power, and it’s time they are held accountable for their actions.

These insiders – along with Hillary Clinton – are the owners of the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq, allow Americans to die in Benghazi, and they are the ones who allowed the rise of ISIS. Yet despite these failures, they think they are entitled to use their favor trading to land taxpayer-funded government contracts and speaking fees. It’s time we put our foot down and declare that their gravy train is over: no longer will Crooked Hillary Clinton and the other disasters in Washington get rich at our expense.

Instead, I offer a better vision for our country and our foreign policy – one that is not run by a ruling family dynasty. It’s an America first vision that stands up to foreign dictators instead of taking money from them, seeks peace over war, rebuilds our military, and makes other countries pay their fair share for their protection. Together, we will break up the rigged system in Washington, make America safe again, and we will Make America Great Again.”




They know that their gravy trains are coming to an end

 

[Troglodyte]

So again, this is a lot less about Trump for me than it is you. It is about the idea of sending a message to the people in power, the only real way we have to send that message short of some type of a revolution. We have been told our whole lives that voting is the way to do that. Well, here we are. Here is our chance.

I don't give a **** if he is not conservative. One would think that would make you at least consider him.

Trump IS the candidate, it IS about him whether you want it to be or not. Furthermore, he isn't third party. He is a candidate for one of the two establishment parties.

The most conservative, anti-establishment idea that was floated this election was Kasich's plan to cut current social security benefits. I loved it! I might be the most conservative anti-establishment person here.

 

[Vis]

The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly

We’ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the “unskewing” of polls has begun — the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking, usually with a thin sheen of math-y words to make it all sound like rigorous analysis instead of magical thinking.

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? (The website is defunct, but you can view an archived picture of it here.) The main contention of that site and others like it was that the polls had too many Democratic respondents in their samples. Dean Chambers, who ran the site, regularly wrote that the polls were vastly undercounting independents and should have used a higher proportion of Republicans in their samples. But in the end, the polls underestimated President Obama’s margin.

Now the unskewers are back, again insisting that pollsters are “using” more Democrats than they should, and that the percentage of Democrats and Republicans should be equal, or that there should be more Republicans. They point to surveys like the recent one from ABC News and The Washington Post, in which 33 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats compared to 27 percent as Republicans. That poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by 8 percentage points.

But let’s say this plainly: The polls are not “skewed.” They weren’t in 2012, and they aren’t now.

The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” Party identification is an attitude, not a demographic. There isn’t some national number from the government that tells us how many Democrats and Republicans there are in the country. Some states collect party registration data, but many states do not. Moreover, party registration is not the same thing as party identification. In a state like Kentucky, for example, there are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but more voters identified as Republican in the 2014 election exit polls.

A person’s party identification can shift, and therefore the overall balance between parties does too. Democrats have typically had an advantage in self-identification — a 4 percentage point edge in 2000, a 7-point advantage in 2008 and a 6-point edge in 2012, according to exit polls — but they had no advantage in the 2004 election. Since 1952, however, almost every presidential election has featured a Democratic advantage in party identification.

And it’s not crazy to think Democrats will have an advantage in party identification in 2016. With a controversial nominee, many Republicans might not want to identify with the GOP, and may be calling themselves independents.

You should also be skeptical of other attempts to reweight pollsters’ data. One website, LongRoom, claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.

Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?

Of course, unskewing is simply one of many ways of pretending Clinton hasn’t jumped out to a large post-convention lead against Donald Trump. You could also ask us to imagine a world without polls. You could allege, without any evidence, that outright election fraud will take place. Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.

People, though, should stick to reality. Right now, Clinton is leading in almost every single national poll. She leads in both our polls-plus and polls-only forecasts. That doesn’t mean she will win. The polls have been off before, but no one knows by how much beforehand, or in which direction they’ll miss. For all their imperfection, the polls are a far better indicator than the conspiracy theories made up to convince people that Trump is ahead.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

 

[Vis]

Lets look at the free market:

Who will win the 2016 U.S. presidential election?


Clinton 75¢ up 3¢
Trump 26¢ down 2¢

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National

place your bets

 

[diver]

Trump IS the candidate, it IS about him whether you want it to be or not. Furthermore, he isn't third party. He is a candidate for one of the two establishment parties.

The most conservative, anti-establishment idea that was floated this election was Kasich's plan to cut current social security benefits. I loved it! I might be the most conservative anti-establishment person here.

Trump is a figurehead of a larger issue to me. That is just the way I look at it. I have plainly stated he wasn't my first choice. I was a Cruz guy, but Cruz was also someone the establishment hated. The fact that he won the nomination or had Cruz won it does not all of the sudden make them establishment. ****, you can see that everyday. This is the one rare moment in the history of politics in which a guy that would normally be a third party won the nomination of a major party.

But again, if you want to think it is all about Trump and other people do, that is fine. I am telling you what is about for me and a lot of people I talk too. Like I do, they also have some reservations concerning Trump. But the bigger issue is making a statement to the powers that be. Cruz I believe would have done that, too.

I liked Kasich as well, but you just stated a problem he would have had. Do you think if he was the nominee things would be more civil? Well, maybe from the Republican side because Kasich isn't hat kind of guy. But right now there would be commercials all over TV warning seniors about how he is going to break a promise made to them. Hell, he might come into their houses and kill them. So it isn't that I didn't like things about other candidates, it just that you have to look at the bigger picture, and I just don't think Kasich would have gotten tough when he needed to.