Re: US Election 2016
 

Obamas political party pay a large part of the bill for air force one during campaigning ,in the case of the Charlotte trip Clintons campaign will pay the full reimbursement fee ,Trump on the other hand continues to spend tax payer money needlessly because he insists on using his own personal jets instead of more practical planes .What this means for those that aren't Trump fanboys is that because Trumps plane seats so few the bulk of the passengers are secret service agents which means the secret pay for most of travel costs hence the tax payer is gifting Trump free travel ,incidentally the companies that run the planes that the secret service are paying for are owned by guess who .
Don't forget as well that Clinton is the wife of a former president so qualifies for secret service protection

I find it very troubling that Trump is so cavalier with tax payer money ,thank you for raising the issue ,it should be noted that Trump has had secret service protection for half as long as Clinton but spent nearly the same amount of tax payer money

Re: US Election 2016
 

Over 30,000 emails deleted after an investigation is underway is not what I'd call inconsequential in fairness and there does appear to have been wrongdoing on Clinton's part that she got out of easily because the FBI made a total balls up of the investigation. For me personally the emails are another example of Clinton's judgement and other events contribute to the serious doubts over her ability to use sound judgement and her response to bad judgement doesn't inspire confidence at all.

Now don't put me down as a trump supporter i cannot stand him personally or what he stands for and his judgement skills are not brilliant either nor his business acumen that he shouts about a fair bit. What americans have for choice in this election is pathetic and completely devisive on their society, whoever wins is going to be spending an awful lot of time just trying to unite america again and neither of these candidates convince me they can.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Isn't the fault of the American public though? as with our political leaders in this country if people were more engaged with politics then they would get a better quality of candidate

Re: US Election 2016
 

FBI investigated and found there was nothing worth pursuing. The latest reinvestigation seems to be a political stunt. Incompetence at worst, not the criminal allegations against Trump. They are 2 rotten candidates for sure.

I wish Sanders had run. On the face of it there's no chance a left wing politician could win in the US. However against Trump he might well have done by a larger margin than Clinton.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Yeah, via 5 immunity deals they got nothing in return for only to have one of those 5 get caught out by internet bandits, making the FBI look like Scooby Doo and gang. So in reality, there was really no investigation, Clinton was clear before the investigation had even started. IMO re-opening this isn't a political stunt, it's massive pressure on the idiot that botched it in the first place, James Comey. He's between a rock and a hard place, he is stuck in a no win scenario. He looks like an idiot for the failings the first time round and now he looks like an idiot for re-opening it.

I feel, if anyone gets indicted, caught or whatever, it'll be John Podesta and not Clinton. Clinton will take damage for it but I feel like it's all on Podesta.

It's easier to just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amMsn3dfVU4

US Congressman Jim Jordan Still I get the feeling if anyone is up to dodgy things and is caught out it'll be Podesta.

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------

Julian Assange is alive :erm:

https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assan...ll-transcript/

All this mention of Pizza has lead to some very dark suggestions around the web, I'm backing well away from it, no major sources dare touch it but there's plenty of crap ones running with it.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Why Podesta? His e-mails aren't been investigated. Just leaked. Plus he wasn't with her at the state department so where would the criminal culpability come from?

Assange probably worried his brief spell back in the limelight is over. Not really going to take his denials of working with the Russians on RT as that credible.

---------- Post added at 17:51 ---------- Previous post was at 17:49 ----------

That stuff is just loopy. It's full tin-foil hat crackpot stuff. The only sources touching it are the same ones who think the Royal Family are lizards. Infowars and Breitbait might though.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Not just her emails the issue here, Wikileaks and Julian Assange say some of her hacked emails reveal that the same money, funding ISIS, has passed through the Clinton Foundation.

As for the Sexual Allegations aimed at Trump, that is all they are, and I found it highly suspicious that one after the other, all eleven of them cropped up within the space of a week or so, saying that he either kissed them or groped them. Those have been largely debunked and as Trump states, they were more than likely, made up by the DNC sleazy campaign, who have been caught out by the way, according to Project Veritas, trying to incite violence at previous Trump rallies, like the one in Chicago.

The Tax avoidance, he addressed in the debates and he has routinely openly admitted at his rallies, that he used the same loop holes, legally, that Hillary's donors used and she had 30 years to change those rules but she didn't because it would also affect her donors.

I wonder how many of those Celebrities coming out to endorse crooked Hillary, are using Tax havens to avoid paying full Tax ?

So crooked Hillary is a little bit hypocritical when it comes to Tax avoidance.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-cap...ump-exploiting

Re: US Election 2016
 

He is going to have to have some pretty solid evidence to claim the Clinton Foundation are funding ISIS. Although it seems allegations against Clinton require a far lower bar to be considered true than those against Trump.

Where have they been debunked?

Re: US Election 2016
 

When do we get the results show like we do for our own? Any idea's on the start time and how long it usually runs? Yearly physical intervention refresher from this Monday till Friday :td: and a follow up exam of course to make sure I still know what colour fire extinguisher's are.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Around 10pm/11pm shows will start. Results start to come in around 1am as I can best recall. It depends on how the election is going. In a blowout 4am could see the American networks project the winner but if it's closer it can take several more hours.

We should know ourselves early though.

For example if Clinton wins either both or one of Florida/NC and holds Pennsylvania? Then she has won. If Trump takes Pennsylvania then he might well be on to win (as long as he takes Florida and NC). If he takes Florida and NC but not Pennsylvania then we have to wait for the states further West.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I could see this being the most watched in history, just to see if the mad hair-do can pull it off. :erm:

Re: US Election 2016
 

Well, may be because Trump hasn't been under two FBI Investigations Damien, thought that should be obvious. As for the evidence, Assange is basing his findings from Clintons hacked emails.

Look, I have said many times, Trump is no Angel, but he is the better option out of the two available.

I even said I supported Hillary until I learned how crooked and corrupt she was and I don't let biased media cloud my judgement on Trump like some do, because let's face it, the biased media aren't exactly covering all the negative press on her, they're more than happy to cover anything for Trump, he only has to fart in the wrong direction and they'd cover it.

Trump said they had in his last debate with HC. But no doubt the biased media would claim they haven't.

Well they haven't exactly been proven true have they? I could ask when were they proven ? Anyone can make an allegation, doesn't mean they are always true and given the nature of how all these suddenly came forward, it's just a little too suspicious.

Re: US Election 2016
 

The FBI isn't investigating Clinton for funding ISIS and Assange isn't a detective.

Anyway I know what the basis of his claim is. It isn't that money went though the foundation but that she takes donations from the same people who allegedly fund ISIS. Saudi Arabia. Now I don't actually know the extent to which the Saudis fund ISIS, this stuff always seem layered between conspiracy and truth.

However whilst Clinton receiving donations from the Saudis is a valid criticism it's also one that applies to one Donald J Trump: http://www.redstate.com/kylefoley/20...-saudi-arabia/

So the source for them being debunked in Donald Trump himself? I think the biased media might want more proof than that.

You said they had been debunked. I accept they haven't been proven. I do know he has been caught saying he likes to grab women and they can't do anything about it though. I also know he said he would produce evidence of it being fake and didn't. I know he said he would sue the New York Times for the story before backing down.

None of which amounts to proof, a respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty that should extent to Clinton as well, but certainly makes me question this claim of those allegations being debunked.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Well the evidence in the emails speaks for itself Damien, regarding HC.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Trump rushed off the stage / Possible firearm involved ?

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/s...238912/video/1