alternative to hillary

[thorfourwinds]

As we are really sure as to what a "post count" on ATS is comprised of, we can offer this greeting from the ATS bot from our recent sign-in...



WTF?   LOL

[ArMaP]

As we are really sure as to what a "post count" on ATS is comprised of, we can offer this greeting from the ATS bot from our recent sign-in...



WTF?   LOL

Did you saw that with your thorfourwinds account?

[space otter]

wow lots of off topic..hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

well while it sounds really cool to pay yourself first.. thinking of a person in the top seat doing it..kinda scary to say the very least

Trump, who claims to be worth more than $10 billion, has even said he could personally profit from his own campaign for president. "It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it," he told Fortune magazine in 2000.

If you're a potential Trump donor and the RNC comes to you asking for a donation, because the campaign is in bad shape, you'd have to ask yourself at this point why you would donate to a campaign that spends about half as much as it takes in enriching Trump and his companies.

Donald Trump's Campaign Paid Trump Companies More Than $1 Million In May
The campaign funded Trump's use of his jets and his Florida mansion, Mar-A-Lago.

Christina Wilkie  National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
06/21/2016 01:15 am ET | Updated 6 hours ago

Donald Trump's presidential campaign paid more than $1 million last month to companies controlled by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, according to reports the Trump campaign filed late Monday with the Federal Election Commission.

The figure represents payments for facilities rental, catering, monthly rents and utilities at more than a half-dozen Trump-owned companies and properties. It includes nearly $350,000 that the Trump campaign paid a Trump-owned company, TAG Air, for the use of Trump's private jets and helicopters. 

The most striking expenditure in the new filings was $423,372, paid by the Trump campaign for rentals and catering at Trump's 126-room Palm Beach, Florida, mansion, Mar-A-Lago, which Trump operates as a private club.

Though the payment was in May, the Mar-A-Lago bill likely covers a number of campaign events Trump has staged there in recent months. A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign did not respond to an email from The Huffington Post inquiring about the expenditures and Mar-A-Lago.

Other Trump-owned recipients of campaign funds include Trump Restaurants, which raked in $125,080 in rent and utilities; Trump Tower Commercial, which charged $72,800 in rent and utilities in the building that houses Trump's campaign headquarters; the Trump National Golf Club, in Jupiter, Florida, which collected $35,845 for facilities rental and catering; and the Trump International

Trump National Golf Club, in Jupiter, Florida, which collected $35,845 for facilities rental and catering; and the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, which billed the campaign for $29,715, for facilities rentals and catering.

It's not unusual for candidates to tap their own companies for campaign functions. But the law requires that campaigns pay fair market value for goods and services, so that a candidate's company doesn't make an illegal donation of office space — or Palm Beach mansions, for example. 

But the money flowing from Trump's campaign to his companies reflects the blending of Trump's successful brand — as a real estate celebrity and reality TV star — with his increasingly gonzo campaign for the presidency.

Trump, who claims to be worth more than $10 billion, has even said he could personally profit from his own campaign for president. "It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it," he told Fortune magazine in 2000.

After Monday, however, that seems very unlikely. Trump's campaign reported $1.3 million in cash at the start of the hugely expensive general election phase of the race. In 2012, the campaigns and super PACs of President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney each raised and spent more than $1 billion.

According to HuffPost's Paul Blumenthal, Trump's current financial situation "places him further behind [presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton] in terms of funds and campaign infrastructure than any other modern presidential candidate."

Editor's note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.


....................................................


http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/21/trumps-dead-broke-campaign-paying-trumps-companies-lot-money/


Trump's Dead Broke Campaign Has Been Paying Trump's Companies (And Trump's Family) A Lot Of Money
Posted at 10:30 am on June 21, 2016 by Leon H. Wolf



Trump's campaign is ridiculously, embarrasingly, and humiliatingly broke. This much has been well-covered. Trump cannot raise money, the RNC cannot raise it on his behalf, and accordingly he has a paltry $1.2M cash on hand heading into the general. This is due largely to the fact that he was only able to raise an embarrassing $3.1M in the whole month of May... barely more than Ted Cruz raised in the first three days of May.

In spite of the fact that the campaign has no money and is not raising any money, it is giving away hefty sums of money to Trump's companies, his kids, and himself. The Wall Street Journal added it up and found that Trump spent over a million on his kids and his own companies:

If you look at Trump's expenditure reports, it's astounding and galling how much money he directed to companies owned or controlled by him:

https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/745082013321990145/photo/1




Then there is the fact that, for some reason, Trump has been paying himself a substantial amount in payroll - in spite of the fact that he claims to be one of the wealthiest men on earth and does not need for his campaign to pay him a living salary, they have been doing it anyway. From the FEC report:



his goes on and on, but clearly Trump is regularly taking money out of his campaign and paying it to himself as payroll.

If you're a potential Trump donor and the RNC comes to you asking for a donation, because the campaign is in bad shape, you'd have to ask yourself at this point why you would donate to a campaign that spends about half as much as it takes in enriching Trump and his companies. If Trump is as rich as he brags about being, why can't he just fund all this himself?



...............................



http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/donald-trump-campaign-appears-to-be-paying-a-fictional-ad-agency/

Donald Trump Campaign Appears to Be Paying a Fictional Ad Agency




http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-could-still-use-campaign-donations-pay-himself-back-36m-n578036

Trump Could Still Use Campaign Donations to Pay Himself Back for $36M Loan After Saying He Wouldn't






http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn't pay his bills

[space otter]

ah hell  what's another criminal bully in the white house anyway..sigh
     i'm almost to the point of not voting..

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/2011-effort-to-remove-judge-shows-bold-trump-legal-tactics/ar-AAhx2Ch?li=BBnb7Kz

2011 effort to remove judge shows bold Trump legal tactics
Associated Press Associated Press
By JAKE PEARSON and CHAD DAY, Associated Press
2 hrs ago

NEW YORK — Five years before Donald Trump accused a federal judge of bias against him in a Trump University lawsuit, the New York billionaire tried to get another judge pulled from a case, court records show.

The attempt to remove the judge in a 2011 lawsuit over a leaky roof at Trump's Wall Street skyscraper is another example of aggressive legal tactics attorneys representing Trump's various business interests have employed over the years in courtrooms, according to a review of hundreds of lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country.

Besides fighting to have judges removed when they rule against him, Trump has also used his public stature to attack his legal opponents through the media, and in at least one case, his businesses were accused of allowing documents to be destroyed during an ongoing civil case, the records show.

Trump's legal tactics and history of finger-pointing at judges when he doesn't get his way offer a preview of how he could react in the White House when challenged by the judiciary— a government branch with a constitutional check on the presidency. The courts have historically set limits on the president's power and expected the executive branch to abide by their legal interpretations.

Trump has been widely criticized in recent weeks, even from members of his own party, since claiming that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel cannot preside fairly over the civil fraud case against the now-defunct Trump University in California. Trump justified his comments by citing his pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border and noting Curiel's Mexican heritage. Curiel was born in Indiana.

The presumptive Republican nominee has also raised the prospect that a Muslim judge may treat him unfairly in court because he has proposed a temporary ban on allowing foreign Muslims into the country.

In the 2011 case, a lawyer for Trump argued that a handful of rulings against him by New York state Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling showed that Tingling was "clearly biased or prejudiced against" them and "cannot be expected to preside over the upcoming trial in an impartial manner," according to a court filing.

Trump's lawyer also seized on a series of procedural rulings against Trump and a comment Tingling made about a voluminous Trump filing being purely for "billing."

That argument echoes one Trump lawyers made in 2009, when they called another state Supreme Court judge biased because of rulings that didn't go their way during a lawsuit between Trump and Chinese businessmen over a Manhattan real estate development. The New York Times first reported that recusal effort earlier this month.

In the Tingling case, the judge refused to step down, telling Trump's lawyers the judiciary couldn't function if judges were to cave every time one side or the other feels aggrieved, according to a transcript.

"I cannot, and I will not, allow the appearance of judge shopping," Tingling said at the time.

Tingling did not respond to a phone message left with his clerk for comment. He ordered tenant John Bostany to pay back-rent and attorneys' fees to Trump, a decision that was reversed on appeal.

Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, declined to answer specific questions about Trump's legal tactics including the Tingling case. She responded to a detailed email only by saying: "Trump is brilliant."

Judges aren't the only targets of Trump's courtroom tactics.

He has used the press to publicly criticize his legal opponents. One recent example came in the Trump University case in which Curiel presides. The main defendant in the case, Tarla Makaeff, dropped out of the litigation earlier this year, citing in part "tremendous stress and anxiety" suffered because of Trump's verbal attacks on her from his "bully pulpit."

In other cases, Trump's companies have defied judges' orders.

In a long-running dispute in Florida over a casino venture, one of Trump's companies repeatedly refused to turn over documents and emails to the opposing side. The case was first reported by USA Today.

Documents and court transcripts obtained by the AP show the judge ultimately ordered both the Trump Organization and an affiliate company to allow their computers to be examined by an outside forensic firm.

"I'm not satisfied that there was due diligence in this case at all," then-Broward County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld said during a 2007 hearing, adding that the company "had not done anything in-house to stop" the deletion of emails and other records.

"How could there not be a hold place? 'Be careful, we've just filed a major lawsuit in which we're seeking billions of dollars, but routinely continue to wipe out computers,'" Streitfield told Trump's attorneys. "That doesn't work."

Streitfield told the AP last week that Trump's attorneys' actions weren't uncommon in high-stakes litigation like the casino case, which settled for an undisclosed amount in 2010. But he said he didn't accept that the company wasn't able to archive electronic documents.

"I was incredulous about that," he said.

___

Day reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Sergio Bustos contributed from Miami.

[space otter]

well this didn't start as a trash trump thread but it sure seems to be that way...sigh
but with good reason after reading all  this about him


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
By David A. Fahrenthold June 28 at 6:00 AM

Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.

In May, under pressure from the news media, Donald Trump made good on a pledge he made four months earlier: He gave $1 million to a nonprofit group helping veterans' families.

Before that, however, when was the last time that Trump gave any of his own money to a charity?

If Trump stands by his promises, such donations should be occurring all the time. In the past 15 years, Trump has promised to donate earnings from a wide variety of his money-making enterprises: "The Apprentice." Trump Vodka. Trump University. A book. Another book. If he honored all those pledges, Trump's gifts to charity would have topped $8.5 million.

But in that time, public records show, Trump donated about $2.8 million — less than a third of the pledged figure — through a foundation set up to give his money away. And there is no evidence that Trump has given to his foundation lately: The last record of any gift from him to his foundation was in 2008.

Trump and his staff are adamant that he has given away millions privately, off the foundation's books. Trump won't release his tax returns, which would confirm such gifts, and his staff won't supply details. "There's no way for you to know or understand," Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told BuzzFeed recently.

Hicks did not respond to repeated questions about Trump's charity from The Washington Post, which has had its press credentials banned from Trump's public events.

[Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group]

In recent weeks, The Post tried to answer the question by digging up records going back to the late 1980s and canvassing a wide swath of nonprofits with some connection to Trump.

That research showed that Trump has a long-standing habit of promising to give to charity. But Trump's follow-through on those promises was middling — even at the beginning, in his early days as a national celebrity.

In the 1980s, Trump pledged to give away royalties from his first book to fight AIDS and multiple sclerosis. But he gave less to those causes than he did to his older daughter's ballet school.
In recent years, Trump's follow-through on his promises has been seemingly nonexistent.

The Post contacted 167 charities searching for evidence of personal gifts from Trump in the period between 2008 and this May. The Post sought out charities that had some link to Trump, either because he had given them his foundation's money, appeared at their charity galas or praised them publicly.

The search turned up just one donation in that period — a 2009 gift of between $5,000 and $9,999 to the Police Athletic League of New York City.

'An agent for charities'

In all, when the $1 million gift to veterans is added to his giving through the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump has given at least $3.8 million to charity since 2001. That is a significant sum, although not among billionaires. For example, hedge fund titan Stanley Druckenmiller, just behind Trump on Forbes's rankings of net worth, gave $120 million to his foundation in 2013 alone.

What has set Trump apart from other wealthy philanthropists is not how much he gives — it is how often he promises that he is going to give.

From 1988: "To the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis,'' Trump said about proceeds from his first book, "The Art of the Deal." "Originally, I figured they'd get a couple of hundred thousand, but because of the success of 'The Art of the Deal,' they'll get four or five million.''

From 2015: "The profits of my book?" Trump said when a reporter asked about what he would do with the proceeds from his most recent book, "Crippled America." "I'm giving them away, to a lot of different — including the vets. 'Kay?"

These promises seemed designed to reassure potential customers and voters and to reconcile two sides of Trump's public persona. On one hand, Trump said he had so much money that he didn't need more. But on the other hand, he was always selling something.

The explanation was that the money Trump was making wasn't for him to keep.

"I am acting as an agent for charities," Trump said in 1989 at the unveiling of "Trump, the Game." In news accounts, he estimated the board game alone would bring in $20 million for charity.

Milton Bradley, which made the game, saw the need for such a promise firsthand. After the company released the game — a Monopoly-like board with Trump branding — it didn't sell.

"The game was just nailed to the shelf," said George DiTomassi, who was president of Milton Bradley at the time. One problem, he said, was that customers were not told about Trump's pledge to give proceeds to charity. "They felt perhaps this was going to be something that a millionaire would make some money on," DiTomassi said.

The TV commercial for the product was changed. "Mr. Trump's proceeds from 'Trump, the Game' will be donated to charity," a new voice-over said at the end.

It still didn't work. The game tanked.

[Missing from Trump's charitable giving: His own personal cash]

Still, Trump said he made $880,000 from it, and even more from "The Art of the Deal." In 1987, the mogul started the Donald J. Trump Foundation to donate his royalties.

But the proceeds didn't go straight to charity. They went straight into Trump's bank account.

"Are you asking me whether or not I took the check .?.?. and endorsed it over to a charity?" Trump said on the witness stand in a 1991 New York State court case, brought by a man who accused him of stealing the idea for "Trump, the Game." "Who would ever do that?"

Trump said he did eventually pass money to his foundation, which gave it away to charities. He said he had given away even more than he earned.

But when Trump ran into financial troubles in the middle of 1990, records show that his giving to the foundation slowed — then stopped. In 1991, he gave no money to the foundation. If book and game royalties came in that year, Trump apparently found another use for them.

When Trump did give his money to charities, it wasn't always to the well-known causes he mentioned in interviews.

One case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of "Art of the Deal," that Trump would give royalties "to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis."

He did give to those causes — but not very much.
From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time.

He gave $26,000 to the homeless.

He gave $6,450 to AIDS research.

He gave $4,250 to multiple sclerosis research.

The amount for those categories was $137,000, or 7 percent of the total.


A list of some of the contributions made by the Donald J. Trump Foundation in 1988. As highlighted here, the donations to his son's school are significantly more than those to AIDS research.
Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump's life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750.

A private school that educated Trump's son, Eric, got $40,000 — more than the homeless, AIDS and multiple sclerosis contributions combined.

'We want to keep them quiet'

By the early 2000s, Trump had recovered from his financial troubles, returning to the public eye as a different kind of mogul. More than ever, Trump himself was the product: He was selling his name on products from TV shows to steaks to high-rise condominiums around the country.

Again, Trump needed an explanation for why he needed the money.

"You're getting paid over a million for your show," radio host Howard Stern said to Trump in 2004, when Trump was first hosting "The Apprentice."

"Oh, a lot more than that," Trump said.

"You're getting paid over two-and-a-half-million dollars!" Stern said.

"Yeah, I don't do it for that," Trump said. "I'm giving the money to charity." He named AIDS research and the Police Athletic League. That year, Trump's foundation appears to have given $1,000 to AIDS research and $106,000 to the Police Athletic League.

As the years passed, Trump's promises tended to become less and less specific. He often said he was giving to "charity" without specifying a group or a broader cause.

In at least one case, Trump didn't say anything about donating the proceeds until two years after the transaction occurred.

When Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi visited New York in 2009, Trump rented him space for a huge tent at an estate Trump owns north of the city. He said nothing about giving the proceeds to charity.

But two years later, Trump told a television interviewer, "I said when I did it, 'I'm going to take Gaddafi's money .?.?. and I'm going to give the money to charity,' and that's exactly what I did."

BuzzFeed recently estimated Trump's take from Gaddafi at $150,000. If Trump did donate the money, there is no public trace of it; Trump donated nothing that year to his own foundation. And this spring, Trump seemed to have forgotten his vow to give the money to charity: "I made a lot of money with Gaddafi, if you remember," he told CBS.

[Here's how we found out about Donald Trump's phantom $1 million donation to vets]

In 2008, Trump said that he would send proceeds from sales of "Trump Super Premium Vodka" to the Walter Reed Society, which helps wounded military personnel. John Pierce, one of the group's board members, recalls receiving "a few hundred dollars."

In 2011, Trump pledged to forego his appearance fee for a televised "roast." The Trump Foundation's tax filings show a $400,000 donation from Comedy Central instead. In recent years, the Trump Foundation's coffers have been filled by other donors, not Trump.

One of the clearest cases of Trump not making good on a promise to give to charity is Trump University, the real estate seminar business that has spawned lawsuits in New York and California alleging widespread fraud.

Trump made at least $5 million from Trump University, according to the New York state attorney general. But Trump's lawyers say that none of it went to charity because it was used for legal fees.

Trump's representatives have repeatedly said there are many charitable donations from Trump in recent years but that he purposely kept them under wraps.

"We want to keep them private. We want to keep them quiet," Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of Trump's business, told The Post earlier this year. "He doesn't want other charities to see it. Then it becomes like a feeding frenzy."

This year, The Post got the same response when it probed a separate claim that Trump had made about his charitable giving. At the launch of his campaign, Trump said that he had given away $102 million in the past five years. That figure turned out to be made up mostly of land-use agreements and free rounds of golf given away at Trump's courses.

Trump's campaign said that none of the $102 million it had counted was actually a cash gift from Trump's pocket. Such gifts existed, Trump's staff said. But they were private.

If so, those gifts are remarkably difficult to find.

Of the 167 charities reviewed by The Post, 39 declined to comment. Another 40 — including the Eric Trump Foundation — did not respond to The Post's inquiries.

Another 77 charities had no record of receiving a personal donation from Trump.

That left just 11 which acknowledged receiving the kind of personal donation that the Trump claims to be giving all the time.

The most recent of those was the gift to the Police Athletic League in 2009.

[space otter]

not exactly a good source for info but the surmise and the question is circulating.... like I said before.. there is soo much anger  for both candidates that we need to pay attention to the VP choices


JULY 8, 2016
COULD TRUMP QUIT IF HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY? QUITTING AFTER WINNING ELECTION COULD CREATE CRISIS

JEREMY LAUKKONEN
The idea that anyone would run an arduous presidential campaign for the better part of two years only to quit if he wins might seem ridiculous, but Donald Trump indicated in a recent interview that he might do just that.

Pundits have speculated as to the seriousness of Trump's candidacy since day one, but he proved many of them wrong by defeating the entirety of the crowded Republican field.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3288013/could-trump-quit-if-he-wins-the-presidency-quitting-after-winning-election-could-create-crisis/#2LdYLHGeVevOgeO9.99

other  links  to the story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/donald-trump-president.html?_r=0
Would Donald Trump Quit if He Wins the Election? He Doesn't Rule It Out


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/upshot/if-donald-trump-lost-would-he-concede.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

[space otter]

gotta laugh at this heading ...no i didn't read it..just got a chuckle and moved on

THE BLOG
Mike Pence: Sarah Palin Without The Charisma
07/15/2016 11:00 am 11:00:30

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/mike-pence-sarah-palin_b_11003128.html

[space otter]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheckingtrump/factchecking-trump%E2%80%99s-big-speech/ar-BBuEx5G?li=BBnb7Kz

In accepting his party's nomination for president, Donald Trump said "here, at our convention, there will be no lies." But we found plenty of instances where Trump twisted facts or made false claims.
Trump said after Clinton's four years as secretary of state, "Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons." But Iran was already on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons. At issue is whether the nuclear deal will prevent Iran, as intended, from becoming a nuclear power.
He also blamed Clinton for the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But Clinton and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates both urged President Obama not to be quick to abandon support for Mubarak.
Trump claimed Clinton "plans a massive ... tax increase," but tax experts say 95 percent of taxpayers would see "little or no change" in their taxes under Clinton's plan.
He correctly noted a 17 percent increase in homicides in the 50 largest cities from 2014 to 2015, but called it a reversal after a decades-long decline in crime. Experts say that's not enough data to draw conclusions about a trend.
Trump claimed Clinton "illegally" stored emails on her private server while secretary of state, and deleted 33,000 to cover-up "her crime." But the FBI cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, and found no evidence of a cover-up.
Trump said that "there's no way to screen" Syrian refugees to determine "who they are or where they come from." But all refugees admitted to the U.S. go through an extensive vetting process that takes 18 to 24 months to complete.
He said the "trade deficit in goods ... is $800 billion last year alone." It was nearly that, but it discounts the services the U.S. exports. The total trade deficit for goods and services is just over $500 billion.
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, also spoke, and he erroneously claimed that the Iran nuclear deal "lined the pockets of the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism with your money." The assets that were unfrozen by the deal weren't held by the U.S. government.
hat's not all: Trump made other factual errors and omissions on NAFTA, Libya, household income, government regulation and the Affordable Care Act.

Note to Readers

Our managing editor, Lori Robertson, is on the scene in Cleveland. This story was written with the help of the entire staff, based in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Next week, we will dispatch our staffers in Philadelphia for the Democratic convention. We intend to vet the major speeches at both conventions for factual accuracy, applying the same standards to both.

Analysis
Foreign Policy Flubs
Trump criticized Hillary Clinton's performance as secretary of state, contrasting the state of foreign affairs now with what they were like "pre-Hillary," as he called it:

Trump said,  "Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons." But Iran was already on a path to nuclear weapons before Clinton became secretary of state in January 2009.
Trump also said, "Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim brotherhood." True, but it was through an election after an uprising against President Hosni Mubarak. Clinton and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates both wrote that they urged President Obama not to be quick to abandon support for Mubarak.
The disagreement between Trump and Clinton on Iran's nuclear ambitions is over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is designed to lengthen the so-called "breakout" time — the amount of time that it takes to assemble a bomb.

Prior to the agreement, the breakout time was thought to be months, but now it is more than a year for at least 10 years, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service explains in its May report "Iran Nuclear Agreement."

However, critics, such the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, say that delay is only temporary — a position shared by Trump and many Republicans.

"While the agreement lengthens Iran's breakout time today, restrictions on Iran's program begin to lift within a decade," AIPAC said earlier this month to mark the one-year anniversary of the deal. "After 15 years Iran will be a nuclear-threshold state: no restrictions will remain on the number or type of centrifuges Iran will be able to install or the number of enrichment facilities it can build."

But Iran was on a path to a nuclear weapon before Obama took office. The United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency has been concerned since 2002 about what it called the "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

In a Nov. 8, 2011, report, the IAEA reported, "Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information."

In November 2008, the New York Times reported that Iran had enough nuclear material to make a bomb, citing expert analysis of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The issue now is how that path has been altered, for better or worse, by the Iran nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration and supported by Clinton (who left the State Department in February 2013, more than two years before the Iran deal was struck).

As for Egypt, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected president of Egypt. That was a year after citizen protests forced longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to resign from office. A year after his election as president, Morsi was then overthrown by the Egyptian military and replaced as president by military chief Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi.

In his book "Duty," Gates was critical of Obama for being too quick to abandon support for Mubarak — a point also made by Clinton in her book "Hard Choices."

In an interview last May to discuss his book, Gates said of Clinton: "I think that we certainly agreed in terms of how to deal with the very first phases of — of the Arab Spring, and, particularly, disagreeing with the President on how to handle Mubarak."

Tax Overreach
Trump claimed that Clinton "plans a massive — and I mean massive — tax increase." But experts say 95 percent of taxpayers would see "little or no change"  in their taxes under Clinton's plan.

Meanwhile, Trump boasted that under his tax plan, "middle-income Americans will experience profound relief." Experts say Americans at all income levels would see their taxes reduced under Trump's plan, but the biggest cuts — both in raw dollars and as a percentage of income — would go to the wealthiest Americans.

Trump: While Hillary Clinton plans a massive — and I mean massive — tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has run for president this year – Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans and businesses will experience profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.

It's accurate to say that Clinton has proposed tax increases, for some. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that the sum of Clinton's proposed tax changes — including changes to both individual and business taxes — would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. But almost all of the higher taxes would fall the top earners.

"Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes," the Tax Policy Center concluded. In fact, the Tax Policy Center wrote, the "top 1 percent of households would pay more than three-fourths of Clinton's total tax increases."

The Tax Foundation reached a similar conclusion about Clinton's tax plan. By the Tax Foundation's calculation, Clinton's tax plan would increase revenues by nearly $500 billion over the next decade, but only by $191 billion when accounting for the plan's overall economic effect.

"The largest sources of revenue in the plan are the new taxes targeted at high-income taxpayers," wrote the Tax Foundation, which analyzed the plan's impact with (dynamic) and without (static) taking into account the expected effect on the economy.

Tax Foundation: On a static basis, Clinton's tax plan would only reduce the after-tax incomes of top-income taxpayers. Those in the top 10 percent would see a reduction in income of 0.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see a 1.7 percent reduction in after-tax income.

On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would see a reduction in after-tax income of 1.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see the largest decline in after-tax income: 2.7 percent.

Trump is correct that he has called for substantial tax cuts — deeper than any of the other presidential candidates — that would result in lower taxes at all income levels.  But the biggest cuts would come for the wealthiest taxpayers, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

"Mr. Trump's plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis," the Tax Foundation stated.

Tax Foundation: Taxpayers in the bottom deciles (the 0-10 and 10-20 percent deciles), would see increases in after-tax adjusted gross income (AGI) of 1.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively. Middle-income taxpayers with incomes that fall within the 30th to 80th percentiles would see larger increases in their after-tax AGI, of between 3.0 and 8.3 percent. Taxpayers with incomes that fall in the highest income class (the 90-100 percent decile) would see an increase in after-tax income of 14.6 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see a 21.6 percent increase in after-tax income.

While the tax cuts are undeniably large, the Tax Foundation cautioned that the loss in revenue — even with expected benefits to the economy — would "increase the federal government's deficit by over $10 trillion" over 10 years.

And More on Taxes ...
Like his son Eric claimed on Day 3 of the RNC, Trump said, "America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world." The U.S. has one of the highest business tax rates, but for personal taxes, the U.S. ranked in the bottom half among industrialized nations.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. came in at 27th out of 30 industrialized countries in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2014. Denmark (50.9 percent), France (45.2 percent) and Belgium (44.7 percent) were the three highest taxed countries. The U.S. figure, 26 percent, was well below the OECD average.

The U.S. also ranked 17th out of 29 industrialized countries when it came to tax revenue per capita, according to the OECD. The top three were Luxembourg ($49,911), Norway ($38,016) and Denmark ($31,054). In the U.S., the tax revenue per capita in 2014 was $14,204.

As for corporate tax rates, the U.S. does, in fact, have the highest statutory tax rate among industrialized nations. And it was second to France among industrialized nations when considering the marginal effective tax rate, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

Not a Reversal in Crime Trend
Trump was correct to say that "homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities," but criminology and statistics experts disagree with his conclusion that a one-year increase in some cities means that "decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed."

Trump: Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation's capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.

The figures are correct for 2014 to 2015, though technically, 36 cities had an increase in murders and 13 had a decrease. As we've written before, law enforcement officials are concerned about the uptick, but far from ready to declare this a "reversal" of a long decline in murders and violent crime, since those figures peaked, both in cities and nationwide, in the early 1990s.

Darrel Stephens, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, told us in an email that it was "too soon to talk about trends." Stephens said there had been "a spike in the past year in some large cities (particularly in five or six) — something we should be concerned about to be sure but not a trend or even close to 20 years ago."

Richard A. Berk, professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told us, "Snapshots are not trends. And two or three years of data are far too few to establish a trend."

It's difficult to know what is causing the increases in some cities, he said. "In LA, for example, the number of shootings has been flat but the number of homicides has jumped," Berk said. "Are the bad guys becoming better marksmen?"

Similarly, when the Washington Postwrote about the 2014-to-2015 increase in major cities, it said that experts were concerned but said "it's too early to know what caused the change, or whether it will endure." Franklin Zimring, a criminologist at the University of California at Berkeley, told the Post, "There's no national pattern."

We took a longer view of what has happened in some major cities, compiling the FBI city-specific data, which comes from voluntary reports from police departments, available through 2012, and 2015 numbers reported by police departments to the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association. Every city shows a big drop in the number of murders since the 1990s, and mixed movement from 2012 to 2015.

Murders in Major Cities Chart© Provided by FactCheck.org Murders in Major Cities Chart
Clinton Emails and the Law
Trump twisted the facts when he said that Clinton "illegally" stored emails on her private server while secretary of state, and deleted 33,000 of them "so the authorities can't see her crime." The FBI on July 5 cleared Clinton of wrongdoing, and found no evidence of a cover-up.

Trump: And when a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

A quick recap of the facts: Clinton exclusively used personal email for government business, and stored those emails on her private server. The FBI investigated whether "classified information was improperly stored or transmitted" on Clinton's server in violation of federal law, as FBI Director James Comey explained on July 5.

But Comey said the facts of the case did not warrant criminal charges. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said.

As for Trump's reference to 33,000 deleted emails, Clinton in 2014 turned over 30,490 work-related emails to the State Department in 2014, and destroyed 31,830 emails she deemed private and personal. The FBI "discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton" to the State Department.

It is a crime to intentionally destroy government records. However, Comey said the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

See our item "A Guide to Clinton's Emails" for more information.

Refugee Exaggerations
While criticizing Hillary Clinton's support for admitting more Syrian refugees to the U.S., Trump said that "there's no way to screen" those refugees to determine "who they are or where they come from." That's false. All refugees admitted to the U.S. go through an extensive vetting process that involves multiple federal agencies and can take up to 24 months to complete.

Trump: My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.

The Obama administration pledged to admit up to 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016 (ending Sept. 30), and Clinton has said that the U.S. should increase that number to 65,000. However, Clinton said the U.S. should increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted "only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine."

The current process for admitting a refugee to the U.S. is very lengthy. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or sometimes a U.S. embassy, refers a qualified refugee for resettlement in the U.S. After that, there's an initial multistep security clearance, including the collection of the refugee's personal data and background information. That is followed by an in-person interview abroad with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has to approve the application. The security clearance involves checking the refugee's name and fingerprints against several government databases. That's followed by a medical screening and a pairing with one of the voluntary agencies in the U.S. that sponsors refugees. And, finally, there's another security clearance to check for any new information. That completes the process.

According to the State Department, the total process from the UNHCR referral to finally being admitted into the U.S. takes 18 to 24 months on average.

And while it may be the case that some Syrian refugees lack the documentation necessary to identify them, that is not the case for everyone. At an October 2015 Senate subcommittee hearing on refugee resettlement, Barbara Strack, chief of the refugee affairs division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that Syrian refugees tend to have "many, many documents."

Trade Deficit Cherry-Picking
Trump also used a bit of cherry-picking when he said, "Our trade deficit in goods reached nearly — think of this, think of this — our trade deficit is $800 billion ... last year alone."

The important word here is "goods." The total trade deficit, counting both goods and services, is smaller.

Official figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis show the value of goods that the U.S. imported was $763 billion (not $800 billion) more than the value of goods it exported. However, the U.S. does well when it comes to exporting services, including travel, education and intellectual property such as software. The U.S. imported $262 billion less in services than it exported — creating a positive balance in that column.

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was just over $500 billion last year.

And another fact Trump didn't mention — that figure peaked a decade ago. The overall trade deficit reached its high in 2006, and last year's figure was 34 percent lower.

And as we reported earlier this month, the downward trend is continuing in 2016.

During the first five months of this year, the trade deficit has shrunk further, down 3.5 percent compared with the same period in 2015.

Clinton's Role in NAFTA
Trump said: "Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country." Actually, the North American Free Trade Agreement Trump was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. President Clinton signed the legislation to implement the agreement.

As we noted when Trump made the same claim last month, Republicans played an important role in the passage of the NAFTA bill. The Senate passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 61-38, on Nov. 20, 1993, with 34 Republican votes, and the House passed it three days earlier, 234-200, with 132 Republican votes.

Trump On Libya Regime Change
Trump criticized Clinton for her "failed policy of nation-building and regime change" and he counted Libya among them. Left unsaid was that Trump also supported the military ouster of Moammar Gadhafi at that time.

Trump: We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, in Egypt, and Syria.

But as Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out at a Republican debate in February, Trump also supported regime change in Libya at the time. Although Trump denied it in the debate, Trump said in 2011 that the U.S. should go into Libya "on a humanitarian basis" and "knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively and save the lives."

Trump made that comment in a video posted to his YouTube channel in February 2011:

Trump, Feb. 28, 2011: I can't believe what our country is doing. Gadhafi, in Libya, is killing thousands of people. Nobody knows how bad it is and we're sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East and we're not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage. And that's what it is, a carnage. ... Now we should go in. We should stop this guy which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts. We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it and they're going to end up taking over the country eventually. But the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back. But we have to go in to save these lives. These people are being slaughtered like animals. ... We should do it on a humanitarian basis. Immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively and save the lives.

Household Income
Trump used an often-cited but outdated figure when he said, "Household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000 — that's 16 years ago." Actually, incomes have been rising lately.

Trump was speaking of incomes in 2014. According to the Census Bureau's annual figures, the median household income in 2014 was $53,657. And in 2000, the "real" income (adjusted for inflation, and stated in 2014 dollars) had been $57,724.

That indeed is a difference of $4,067. But the notion of a 16-year decline is misleading. What Trump failed to mention is that in 2014, real median household income had already risen by $1,052 since hitting a recession-driven low in 2012.

Furthermore, a lot has happened since 2014. As we've often reported, more timely measures show paychecks rising faster than inflation — especially in the past two years. The most recent report on average weekly earnings for all workers in June was 3.1 percent above the figure for the same month in 2014.

Choosing Your Doctor
Trump used a popular false talking point about the Affordable Care Act when he said that he'd repeal it and "you will be able to choose your own doctor again." The law didn't take away the ability to choose a doctor, as we've said before.

The ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, expanded Medicaid but also expanded private insurance coverage. And as most Americans know — since 55 percent have private insurance — the insurers usually have a network of doctors to choose from. The ACA didn't change that.

We often have heard another version of this claim, asserting that the government was coming between you and your doctor, but, again, the ACA didn't come close to establishing a government-run system like Britain or Canada have.

Regulation Repeat
Trump repeated an overstatement on the costs of regulation — a claim we heard on the second day of the convention from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. Trump said that "excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year," but that figure comes from a conservative group's admitted "back-of-the-envelope" calculation and is an estimate of regulatory costs that does not include potential savings.

The calculation comes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a staunch opponent of government over-regulation. In the report, "Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State," author Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. calculates the 2013 cost of federal regulatory compliance at nearly $1.9 trillion.

That figure is based on the Office of Management and Budget's annual reports to Congress on the benefits and costs of federal regulation. The problem is that the Competitive Enterprise report focused on the "costs" and ignored the "benefits" listed in those reports. That tells only half the story.

For more on this topic, check out our 2015 CPAC article where we examined a similar claim from Rick Perry.

Priebus: Iran's Frozen Assets
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, erroneously claimed that the Iran nuclear deal "lined the pockets of the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism with your money." Your money? No.

The assets unfrozen as part of the deal with Iran were not held by the U.S. government. They were Iranian assets held mostly by financial institutions in countries outside the U.S., and were frozen due to the economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries. So Priebus was wrong to characterize to an American audience that the unfrozen assets were "your money." It was never the United States' money, nor were the assets even controlled by the U.S. government.

Priebus' error mirrors the fundamental misunderstanding that underpinned Trump's fanciful recounting in recent weeks of how he would have negotiated a tougher nuclear agreement with Iran.

In one speech, Trump said he would have told Iranian officials that "we don't have the money" to pay back Iran, because of a "bad budget" and large U.S. debt. "I'm not gonna be able to give you the $150 billion back," Trump said he would have told Iranian officials. "I can't do it." A week later, Trump laid out a similar hypothetical negotiation with Iran, saying the U.S. "should've never given [Iran] back the $150 billion," and that he would have told the country, " We don't have it, I'm sorry." As a result, he said, "We would've saved $150 billion."

Again, the money was never the United States' to "give back." And so keeping those assets frozen would not have "saved" American taxpayers anything.

Trump was more careful with his wording in his convention speech, saying only that the Iran deal "gave back to Iran $150 billion." The deal did result in Iran gaining access to tens of billions in frozen assets. However, experts told us the $150 billion figure is inflated.

Richard Nephew, a sanctions expert who was on the State Department team negotiating with Iran, told us the "total amount of foreign-held assets was probably something closer to $100 billion."

Nader Habibi, a professor of economics at Brandeis University's Crown Center for Middle East Studies, told us the amount received by Iran is even lower than that.

"Based on my research the total amount of Iran's assets that were released as a result of the nuclear agreement were between $25 billion to $50 billion," said Habibi, who detailed that calculation in an article for The Conversation, a site that publishes articles from academic and research experts.

Clinton and Trump on Debt
Priebus also said that "a Clinton presidency only means more debt." Yes, but Clinton's plan would result in a "relatively small" increase in the debt, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. On the other hand, the group found that Trump's tax and spending plan would cause a "massive increase" in the debt.

"Our national debt is at post-war record-high levels and projected to grow unsustainably," wrote Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "And neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump would reverse course — Trump, in fact, would make our debt dramatically worse."

Clinton has proposed $1.45 trillion in new spending — mostly on infrastructure, paid leave and education proposals — according to a June 27 report by CRFB called "Promises and Price Tags." But that new spending is largely offset by $1.2 trillion in new revenue from proposed tax increases for the wealthiest Americans. So, the report concludes, Clinton would increase the debt by $250 million by 2026.

However, the group found that Trump's tax plan would result in $10.5 trillion less in tax revenues, which would be partially offset by $650 billion less in primary spending. Together with $1.7 trillion in higher interest costs, the report concludes that the sum of Trump's policies would increase the debt by $11.5 trillion over 10 years.

Goldwein noted that the estimates are "subject to uncertainty." But, he said, "there does not seem to be a plausible path for either candidate to put the debt on a sustainable path without modifying or adding to their plans." And, he said, neither can get there "simply by growing the economy."

— Lori Robertson, with Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Robert Farley, D'Angelo Gore, Zachary Gross, Caroline Wallace, Sydney Schaedel and Jenna Wang

Sources
FactCheck.org. "FactChecking the 10th GOP Debate." 26 Feb 2016.

YouTube.com. "From The Desk Of Donald Trump." 28 Feb 2011.

Habibi, Nader. "Iran's frozen funds: how much is really there and how will they be used?" The Conversation. 11 Aug 2015.

Farley, Robert. "Trump's Fanciful Iran Negotiation." FactCheck.org. 8 Jul 2016.

Auxier, Richard, Burman, et al. "Research Report: An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals." Tax Policy Center. 3 Mar 2016.

Pomerleau, Kyle and Schuyler, Michael. "Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals." Tax Foundation. 26 Jan 2016.

Tax Foundation. "A Comparison of Presidential Tax Plans and Their Economic Effects." Accessed 21 Jul 2016.
Kiely, Eugene, et al. "Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting." FactCheck.org. 21 June 2016.

Washington Post. "The CBS Democratic debate transcript, annotated." 15 Nov 2015.

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. "Security Screening of Refugees Admitted to the United States: A Detailed, Rigorous Process." Accessed 14 Jun 2016.

U.S. Department of State. Background Briefing on Refugee Screening and Admissions. 17 Nov 2015.

Kirkpatrick, David. "Named Egypt's Winner, Islamist Makes History." New York Times. 24 Jun 2012.

Kirkpatrick, David. "Army Ousts Egypt's President; Morsi Is Taken Into Military Custody." New York Times. 3 Jul 2013.

Kirkpatrick, David. "Egypt Erupts in Jubilation as Mubarak Steps Down." New York Times. 11 Feb 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. "U.S. Trade in Goods and Services – Balance of Payments (BOP) Basis." 4 Mar 2016.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Affairs. "Table 1. U.S. International Transactions: Exports of Goods and Services." 16 Jun 2016.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Affairs. "Table 1. U.S. International Transactions: Imports of Goods and Services." 16 Jun 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. "U.S. International Trade In Goods And Services, May 2016." News Release. 6 Jul 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. Real Median Household Income in the United States, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed 21 Jul 2016.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars." Data extracted 22 Jul 2016.

Federal Bureau Investigation. "Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's Use of a Personal E-Mail System." 5 Jul 2016.

Kiely, Eugene. "A Guide to Clinton's Emails." FactCheck.org. 5 Jul 2016.

U.S. State Department. "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." Undated. Accessed 22 Jul 2016.

Congressional Research Service. "Iran Nuclear Agreement." 31 May 2016.

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Taking Stock: The Iran Deal One Year Later." 12 Jul 2016.

International Atomic Energy Agency. "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran."  8 Nov 2011.

Broad, William J. and David E. Sanger. "Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon." New York Times. 19 Nov 2008.

Mullen, Jethro and Nic Robertson. "Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program." CNN. 14 Jul 2015.

Solomon, Jay. "Hillary Clinton: 6 Mistakes the White House Made." Wall Street Journal. 10 Jun 2014.Landler, Mark. "White House, in Gates's Telling, Restrained Clinton." New York Times. 10 Jan 2014.

CBS News. "Face The Nation Transcript May 17, 2015: Walker, Nunes, Gates." Transcript. 17 May 2015.

Ehrenfreund, Max and Denise Lu. "More people were murdered last year than in 2014, and no one's sure why." Washington Post. 27 Jan 2016.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. Large Local Agency Reported Crime by Locality (city, county). Accessed 18 Jul 2016.

Major Cities Chiefs Police Association. Violent Crime Survey – Totals. Comparison between 2015 and 2014. 30 Jan 2016.

Robertson, Lori. "Dueling Claims on Crime Trend." FactCheck.org. 13 Jul 2016.

Kiely, Eugene, Robert Farley and D'Angelo Gore. "Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting." FactCheck.org. 21 June 2016.

Washington Post. "The CBS Democratic debate transcript, annotated." 15 Nov 2015.

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. "Security Screening of Refugees Admitted to the United States: A Detailed, Rigorous Process." Accessed 14 Jun 2016.

U.S. Department of State. Background Briefing on Refugee Screening and Admissions. 17 Nov 2015.

Robertson, Lori. "False Assumptions on the Health Care Law." FactCheck.org. 11 Jul 2013.

Robertson, Lori. "Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods." FactCheck.org. 28 Jun 2012.

Kaiser Family Foundation. Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population (2014). Accessed 21 Jul 2016.



to me he is sounding more like hitler and then i think of the anti christ stuff that was going around at the last election
damn we are so screwed  with this election
oh goody  next week the other side gets a turn

[space otter]

Jon Steward hits the nail on the head

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jon-stewart-tears-into-trump-supporters-this-country-isnt-yours/ar-BBuDY6L?li=BBnbfcL

Jon Stewart tears into Trump supporters: 'This country isn't yours'

Entertainment Weekly Entertainment Weekly
Christopher Rosen
12 hrs ago


video


Jon Stewart sat behind Stephen Colbert's desk on Thursday night following the Republican National Convention and provided a furious rebuke to the commentary offered during the four-day event.

"The Republicans appear to have a very clear plan for America. They articulated it throughout the convention. No. 1, jail your political opponent. No. 2, inject Rudy Giuliani with a speedball and a Red Bull enema. And then No. 3, spend the rest of the time scaring the holy bejesus out of everybody," Stewart joked on Thursday's episode of The Late Show.

Stewart mocked conservative media, particularly Sean Hannity, for how it has embraced Donald Trump as a candidate, despite the fact he shares many traits Conservatives slammed Barack Obama for possessing, including a reliance on teleprompters.

He then addressed Hannity and other Republicans about their hypocrisy in supporting Trump for president. "You just want that person to give you your country back, because you feel you're this country's rightful owners," Stewart said. "There's only one problem with that: This country isn't yours. You don't own it. It never was. There is no real America. You don't own it. You don't own patriotism. You don't own Christianity. You sure as hell don't own respect for the bravery and sacrifice of military, police, and firefighters. Trust me. I saw a lot of people on the convention floor with their Blue Lives Matter rhetoric, who either remained silent or actively fought against the 9/11 first responders bill reauthorization. I see you, and I see your bulls---. I see it!"

The former Daily Show host closed his speech by slamming Republicans for not being true to the Founding Fathers -- while also getting in a reference to Hamilton.

"You've got a problem with those Americans fighting for their place at the table. You got a problem with them because you feel like -- what's Rep. Steve King's word for it? -- subgroups of America are being divisive. If you have a problem with that then take it up with the founders. We hold these truths to be self evident," Stewart said, before singing, "that all men are created equal" in the style of the Hamilton song "The Schuyler Sisters." He finished by giving a shoutout to Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda and offering a plea for inclusion.

"Those fighting to be included in the ideal of equality are not being divisive; those fighting to keep those people out are," Stewart said.

[space otter]

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
  many articles

FIVE-ALARM LIAR
'America One Of The Highest-Taxed Nations'... Wrong
... Crime Rate Is Soaring... Wrong...
Obama To Blame For Poor Infrastructure... Investments Blocked By GOP...
And 2.1 Million  Unemployed Latinos... Way Off...
America Marred By 'Chaos' At Home And 'Weakness' Abroad... 'Not Only Factually False... A Wildly Distorted View Of All The Nation Stands For'...

Trump's Terrifying Vision...  'Not An American Approach'...
H.W. Speechwriter: 'Very Dark And Frightening'...
Garry Kasparov: Sounded Straight Out Of Russia...
David Duke: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better!'...
Andrew Sullivan: 'Massive Lies And Distortions'... 
Republicans Have Made A World-Historical Mistake... Latinos Call Out Fear-Mongering...

[A51Watcher]

[space otter]

what no trump song?

well i guess i am leaning towards 4 more years of lies and bulls hit as opposed to  getting the country isolated and at war with a civil war included
but
there aren't any good choices

[A51Watcher]

what no trump song?

Well then okey dokey!

[space otter]

well i was looking for a start on a hillary dread opps i mean thread..sigh
but this one seems to go here
we are so screwed...maybe Z can tell us how to move to canada



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/but-what-if-trump-loses_b_11153432.html

THE BLOG
Lincoln Mitchell
07/23/2016 09:05 am 09:05:24 | Updated 2 hours ago

But What If Trump Loses

Many Americans watched last week's Republican convention with horror and trepidation. Rudy Giuliani's quadrennial temper tantrum was even more animated than during previous conventions. Ben Carson gave a speech that married his own bizarre brand of evangelical Christianity with reasoning that one might expect on a child's playground to imply that Hillary Clinton was a worshipper of Lucifer. The candidate himself painted a frightening, if based in fantasy, picture of an America under siege by roving bands of cop-killing criminals and Isis operatives. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, the Quicken Loans Arena echoed with calls to lock Hillary Clinton up and, even more appallingly, some supporters of the Republican candidate have suggested executing her for treason. This was not Ronald Reagan's morning in America, George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism or even Mitt Romney's "We built it." Rather, this was a convention that presented a level of vitriol, hatred, intolerance and division that we have not seen in a long time.

It was very difficult to watch that convention and conclude that in the likely event of a Clinton victory in November, the people in that arena and the millions of Americans they represent, will accept defeat easily. Americans have always been proud of our ability to accept political defeat and move to fight another day. There is, however, real reason to think that will not happen this time if Clinton wins. The people in that room do not see the coming election as a hard fought campaign between two loyal Americans, but as a battle between a crooked, dishonest, criminal who should not be allowed to live freely, let alone serve as President of the United States, and a heroic figure who is the only person able to save the country. This is a dynamic that threatens the very core of our democracy.

Simply put, people who call for their opponents to be arrested or killed, while imbuing their own candidate with messianic powers, do not accept political defeat easily. Moreover, the alleged more mature voices within the Republican Party who have stood by and said nothing while this all occurred are clearly unwilling or unable to moderate what could charitably be described as the angry, unhinged mob formerly known as the Republican base.

It has been evident for many months now, and was made more apparent last week in Cleveland, that a Trump presidency would damage the already weak social fabric of American democracy. His enthusiasm for divisive and hateful rhetoric, tenuous understanding of key principles of American democracy such as, for example, the First Amendment, and deep-seeded megalomania are all reason that a Trump presidency would threaten our democracy and what is left of our national cohesion. However, it is now increasingly likely that a Trump defeat, even by a resounding margin, would not be met with acceptance from Trump and his supporters.

The possibility that Trump would encourage his supporters not to accept this defeat, perhaps by claiming that the vote was rigged or that undocumented workers voted in droves in key southwestern states, must be gravely considered at this point. This conclusion is not simply the product of progressive paranoia, but it is a reaction to what we have seen and heard from Trump and his supporters for the last year, but even more so during the last week.

Speculating about what a candidate might do if he loses is a strange exercise, and one that should have no place in a consolidated and stable democracy, if flawed, democracy like ours. However, it is something that based on the behavior of Trump and his supporters, must be considered. Throughout this long campaign we have seen Trump encourage and even advocate violent behavior, stand by while his Democratic opponent is accused of treason and murder, and evince little understanding of democratic processes or mores. The question of what this man will do if, as is still likely, he loses on November 8th, cannot be ignored given this context.

Trump, should he be defeated, could easily eschew the traditional gracious concession, mobilize his supporters to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the outcome and their disbelief in his Democratic vanquisher's victory. Ultimately, however, it would be very difficult for him to stop Clinton from becoming President. Trump controls no security forces, has little institutional support and has few concrete resources other than his Twitter account, but he clearly has the enthusiastic support of enough people to create problems in the immediate aftermath of his possible defeat. Those people could easily protest for a few weeks and continue a lower level campaign of failing to recognize Clinton's presidency for years.

It should also be remembered that Trump a man with a loyal following of angry citizens with an extraordinarily exaggerated sense of their own victimhood and suffering, and that he has the temperament of an acutely narcissistic middle school student. He also has built a presidential campaign heavily around overreacting, often viciously and with prejudice towards almost all, to every real, or more frequently, imagined, insult or slight he has experienced. This is not the temperament of somebody who will accept an electoral defeat move on and urge his followers to do the same. In a very real way, while seeing this man elected President of the United States should, and does, strike fear in the hearts of millions, even his defeat could create enduring problems for American democracy.



hey 51  this ones 4 u








and a more ignorant







http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/07/14/funny-die-releases-video-donald-trump-rapping-nazis-kkk/





Canadian comedian Tom Green — who was fired by Donald Trump during the 2009 season of NBC's Celebrity Apprentice — stars in a video released on liberal comedy website Funny or Die that features the presumptive GOP presidential nominee rapping to an audience featuring Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members.
Sporting a blonde wig, the 44-year-old Freddy Got Fingered star raps lyrics including, "I don't give a f*ck, I've got a TV show/Send everybody back to Mexico," and "I got money, so it's OK/To listen to the dumb sh*t that I say."

[space otter]

opps here's the one without looking at tom greens pic the whole time