Good ol' The Donald Trump

[johnny9fingers]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

So... After milking NY taxpayer for almost a Billion, when the story gets published, the Donald gets a bit shirty with the NYT.

https://www.

Comments

[mahnmut]

And this guy has a real chance of becoming POTUS? America, what gives!?

[johnny9fingers]

Good sense? Critical thinking? Understanding? Comprehension?

The synonyms just keep rolling out of the thesaurus....

[johnny9fingers]

Also this gives the rest of us the opportunity to see if the "strict constitutionalists" are exactly that, or are merely covering themselves in the Bill of Rights for their own convenience.

Now comes the test.

I shall amend the OP to include this.

[ddstory]

The GOP really hates the Clintons

They do, although they now claim they prefer Clinton to Obama (because they hate Obama too). Bill Clinton proved that you can have a prosperous economy with a liberal government, and they can't have that, can they?

[oportet]

I get the frustration - I understand the 'lesser of two evils' narrative irritating the left - but that's the extreme hole we've all helped dig.

I think 'innocent' is taking it a little far though - the numbers show plenty of democrats think she's full of shit too - so it isn't completely a partisan opinion.

Absolute proof may be needed for a prosecution in a criminal court - absolute proof may be needed for a constructive debate here on the internet - but it isn't needed everywhere, especially where it matters - the voting booth.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the voter doesn't have to do a DNA test to prove it's a duck - the burden of proof is on those claiming it isn't a duck. That's what Hillary and her loyal media don't seem to understand. Destroying evidence that could lead to proof of wrongdoing doesn't prove there was no wrongdoing (maybe with the FBI, but not in the court of public opinion). To stay in denial of that is just going to hurt her chances more.

[johnny9fingers]

Actually absolute proof may be ideal, but is rarely required in a criminal court, else there would be no miscarriages of justice.

The only thing in twenty-five fucking years of constant investigation into the woman indicates she deleted emails.

And you think that makes her quack. The fact that the GOP and its media have painted her as a duck for a quarter of a century may have something to do with the US's collective myopia.

[johnny9fingers]

And what about this number one amendment, the first part of the bill of rights that the Donald wants to ride roughshod over, and makes public pronouncements about?

I don't see the constitutionalists up in arms about it, but that could be because I'm looking in the wrong place.

Don't get me wrong... By American Standards I would be an Eisenhower conservative.