Election 2016 Thread

[Forty Two]

Trump polling 37% among latino voters. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinio ... ise-at-37/ and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rts-fall-/

This is an interesting bit, with Trump's numbers possibly going up on this point. I am married to an immigrant, and I a first generation American, and the legal immigrants in my family, and my friends, are not happy about illegal immigration. I suspect there is a decent percentage of naturalized citizens who feel as if illegals are cheating the system which the naturalized citizen worked hard to comply with.

[Hermit]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

He's referring to the bias of being a member of an organization which is boycotting his company. The Mexican heritage bit relates to the guy being a member of what Trump says are La Raza related organizations. Indelicately worded. Curiel is American born, for sure.

Trump did not say anything of the sort. He said he should have recused himself because he is of Mexican heritage. If Trump did not mean it, he would have left that out of his list of why he should have recused himself, and mentioned the ones you did, but he did not. Your evasions and twisting of facts are getting out of hand, and I'm getting quite sick of it. So, do fuck off, you mealy-mouthed fuckwit. You're doing your best with your underhanded spin-doctoring, combined with your pathetic aggressive defensiveness and your sarcasm that's as flat as a steamrolled cockroach to change the minds of those who like the US and its inhabitants.

[Hermit]

Refugee =/= illegal.

If a person comes to the US illegally, they can claim refugee status if they are outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. So, people in general are not refugees.

In the US, refugees are put into a process of administrative and judicial review, where they are given due process and a fair hearing to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. That is not the same as an economic migrant, or someone who is just leaving one country to go to another because they are seeking a better opportunity.

If, however, you blokes in Oz treat people so badly, then you may wish to discuss those issues, rather than worrying about what the US does, which is significantly more friendly to immigrants than what you describe. And, even implementing what Trump is suggesting, we would STILL be more friendly to immigrants than what you describe.

Could you be a bit more of a sanctimonious dickhead?

[laklak]

Whatever happens, it's going to be absolutely necessary to maintain a sense of humor. Preferably a rather dark one.

[Forty Two]

Refugee =/= illegal.

If a person comes to the US illegally, they can claim refugee status if they are outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. So, people in general are not refugees.

In the US, refugees are put into a process of administrative and judicial review, where they are given due process and a fair hearing to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. That is not the same as an economic migrant, or someone who is just leaving one country to go to another because they are seeking a better opportunity.

If, however, you blokes in Oz treat people so badly, then you may wish to discuss those issues, rather than worrying about what the US does, which is significantly more friendly to immigrants than what you describe. And, even implementing what Trump is suggesting, we would STILL be more friendly to immigrants than what you describe.

Could you be a bit more of a sanctimonious dickhead?

LOL - right, pushing back against the constant barrage of sanctimonious bullshit coming from Euros and Ozzies is being a sanctimonious dickhead. Well fuck you sideways, buddy.

[Hermit]

You skipped a post.

[Forty Two]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

He's referring to the bias of being a member of an organization which is boycotting his company. The Mexican heritage bit relates to the guy being a member of what Trump says are La Raza related organizations. Indelicately worded. Curiel is American born, for sure.

Trump did not say anything of the sort. He said he should have recused himself because he is of Mexican heritage, not only that - for other things.

It's right in the quote - if you can't see your way clear to read past a comma, that's your problem, dimwit.

and mentioned the ones you did, but he did not. Your evasions and twisting of facts are getting out of hand, and I'm getting quite sick of it. So, do fuck off, you mealy-mouthed fuckwit. You're doing your best with your underhanded spin-doctoring, combined with your pathetic aggressive defensiveness and your sarcasm that's as flat as a steamrolled cockroach to change the minds of those who like the US and its inhabitants.

[Hermit]

Firstly. "other things" is not a list of why he should have recused himself. Secondly, even if it were, his words, "he should have recused himself because he is of Mexican heritage", contradict your assertion that "Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens". You're as slimey as ever.

With that I'll add you to Seth in my ignore list for a while.

[Forty Two]

Firstly, that's not the only thing he and his campaign said on the matter. If you refuse to listen to the explanations, and you prefer just to take the worst possible interpretation of an off the cuff, extemporaneous blurb, then that's up to you. Go ahead. And your quote is not accurate there. He did not say "he should have recused himself because his is of Mexican heritage." That change that you made changes quite a bit.

You're falsely attempting to limit the issue to one part of his statements on the topic -- and the rearrange his quote to an absolute, where he did not say it the way you just wrote it.

Trump said - “We’re in front of a very hostile judge,” and “The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative."

He also stated: “I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.”

He refers to “unfair and mistaken rulings in this case,” and “the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations,” as a result of which “questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality.” (albeit raised by him)

So, he has clearly said more than you would like to admit.

[piscator]

Florida AG Personally Solicited Donation from Trump Before Dropping Trump University Fraud Investigation

Florida’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, has confirmed that she personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump at the time her office was considering prosecuting Trump University for fraud, the Associated Press reports. A Trump family foundation gave a nonprofit controlled by Bondi $25,000, and Bondi dropped the case.

In September 2013, the Orlando Sentinel ran a story asking why Bondi’s office wasn’t investigating Trump University. (New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman had just filed a lawsuit against the enterprise.) Bondi said that she would look into the matter.

Three days later, And Justice for All, the committee supporting her re-election campaign, received the check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Bondi’s office nixed the lawsuit, citing insufficient grounds to proceed. At the time, Trump refused to answer questions about why he was contributing to the Florida AG, but in a statement he called Bondi “a fabulous representative of the people” and Schneiderman “a political hack.”

Representatives of both Trump and Bondi have issued conflicting denials of any wrongdoing, but on Monday a spokesman for Bondi confirmed that the AG had asked Trump for the donation. The AP reports:

Bondi declined repeated requests for an interview on Monday, referring all questions to Marc Reichelderfer, a political consultant who worked for her re-election effort.

Reichelderfer told AP that Bondi spoke with Trump “several weeks” before her office publicly announced it was deliberating whether to join a lawsuit proposed by New York’s Democratic attorney general. Reichelfelder said that Bondi was unaware of the many consumer complaints received by her office about Trump’s real-estate seminars at the time she requested the donation.

“The process took at least several weeks, from the time they spoke to the time they received the contribution,” Reichelderfer told AP.
In March, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the IRS, alleging that the Trump foundation had not properly disclosed the contribution. Tax-exempt charitable foundations cannot support political groups.

In a statement on Tuesday, CREW maintained its criticism. “Attorney General Bondi’s admission that she personally solicited a donation from Donald Trump directly contradicts the Trump camp’s version of events,” the statement reads. “Their claims that they did not know how the Bondi-backing group got the money and their implication that Bondi made the request of the Trump Organization and not Trump himself raise further questions, including how another organization was listed as receiving the donation on their taxes.”

“We filed a complaint with the IRS focusing on the Trump Foundation’s illegal $25,000 contribution to support Bondi’s election. If the contribution was made or solicited to influence an official decision, it would be an even more serious violation of the law. This reaffirms the need for an immediate and thorough investigation.”

In the March GOP debate, Trump criticized his rivals’ dependance on Super PACs. “There is total control of the candidates,” he said. “I know it better than anybody that probably ever lived. And I will tell you this: I know the system far better than anybody else and I know the system is broken.”

“I know it so well because I was on both sides of it. I was on the other side all my life and I’ve always made large contributions. And frankly, I know the system better than anybody else and I’m the only one up here that’s going to be able to fix that system because that system is wrong.”

Bondi has endorsed Trump’s presidential bid.

http://gawker.com/florida-ag-personally ... 1780996383

[piscator]

Texas Governor Linked to Alleged Cover-Up of Dropped Trump University Investigation

Pam Bondi wasn’t the only state attorney general to drop a Trump University probe: Greg Abbot—now the governor of Texas—closed his office’s civil investigation of “possibly deceptive trade practices” in 2010 after Trump University pulled out of Texas. Campaign finance records show that Trump subsequently donated $35,000 to Abbott’s successful gubernatorial bid.

Trump University didn’t stay in Texas for very long, opening up shop in 2009 and closing in 2010 after Abbott’s office sent at least one letter to Trump’s attorneys, charging it with making promises to students “virtually impossible to achieve.”

A former deputy chief in the attorney general’s consumer protection division, John Owens, has come forward with details of how the AG squashed the Trump University investigation. A confidential memo shows that the consumer protection division wanted to ask Trump University for a $5.4 million settlement, and to bring a lawsuit if the organization refused.

After Trump University agreed to pull out of Texas, however, Abbott’s office dropped the investigation. “It was swept under the rug,” Owens told the Texas Tribune, “and the consumers were left with no one to go to bat for them.”


...

Meanwhile, Ken Paxton, the current Texas attorney general, has sent Owens a cease-and-desist letter to get him to stop talking about the seven-month-long investigation, alleging that he was sharing “privileged and private information from state records.”

“I think the information I provided to the press was important and needed to be shared with the public,” Owens, who served in the attorney general’s office for 20 years before retiring in 2011, told the Houston Chronicle. “I stand by everything I have said, and everything I have said is true and correct.”

http://gawker.com/texas-governor-linked ... 1781103099

[Forty Two]

Well, that may be an issue. I don't know. It's old news, from 2013. I won't minimize it, like you guys do when dealing with Hillary's defalcations and investigations. If there is something there, someone should investigate the AG and Trump.

I will say, however, that if Bondi reached out to "solicit" a donation from Trump, then it might well be characterized as extortion of the Trump organization. A government law enforcement officer, Attorney General, tells you to donate money, or there will be a case brought against you.... that's extortion. Or, she may have solicited a bribe. http://web.tampabay.com/news/politics/s ... on/2280849

But, it looks like Bondi is taking the position that no investigation was ever opened, at all.

“My office has made public every document on this issue, which shows no one in my office ever opened an investigation on Trump University nor was there a basis for doing so,” Bondi said. “Any news story that suggests otherwise is completely false.

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2016/ ... -donation/

That is interesting, in that the allegation is that there was an investigation, which she dropped after getting the donation. If there was no investigation, then that changes the analysis quite a bit.

[Forty Two]

You should be able to do better than "gawker" for sources on this. They aren't very detailed, and the wording of the articles is weird. Cutting through it regarding the Texas thing - Trump U goes there in 2009, and is gone one year later in 2010. There are some complaints, and the AG decides not to go forward after Trump U leaves that state. That doesn't sound unusual to me. Texas jurisdiction generally ends at the border, and once the company is gone it's hard to chase them down. The company was out of business in 2010, so the AG could easily simply say that the complaints were not worth the resources to pursue.

[piscator]

You should be able to do better than to be a partisan hack in the service of a lowlife fraud so obviously unfit for the job his monstrous ego has nonetheless demanded of him.

[Tyrannical]

I'll be bringing over an immigrant wife too in a year and a half.
But since she can't fake a Spanish accent I'll have to follow the legal way