portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war

Crooked Donald Trump - Lying Dishonest Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. Do not believe that Mr.Trump is capable of telling the truth. He is a chronic liar and he is totally incapable of telling the truth. Donald Trump is playing the American people as fools, for his own personal gain.
Donald Trump, since the beginning of his political campaign, has spoken nothing but LIES! It seems that every time that the Republican Party begins to panic, they trot out fabricated emails about
Hillary Clinton to try, in a feeble attempt to distract attention from the asinine antics of Donald Trump.He has insulted Black people, Hispanic people, Arabs, Jews, and mocked handicapped people.
He assumes that he has the right to sexually assault women -- has lied about being a bigot, he has expressed nothing but admiration for support and admiration for criminal organizations like the KKK,
Nazis, Skinheads, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, and other cowardly bigoted cowards. He has employed thousands of illegal immigrants to build his buildings, and rip off those workers for their wages.
Donald Trump is guilty of embezzellment of thousands of dollars for his personal benefit, lied numerous times about Hillary and Obama, committed tax fraud numerous times, he is a brown noser to Vladimir Putin, illegal dealing with Castro's Cuba, Iranian banks with ties to ISIS, among many other lies that continually pour out of his mouth.
Donald Trump is the sorriest excuse for a human being!


Hillary Will Start WWIII 20.Oct.2016 23:02


We will all die if she walks into the whitehouse.

What more need you know?

Re: Donald Trump 21.Oct.2016 16:52

gwai lo

To blues, if you believe any lie that Donald Chump tells you, you are one of the walking dead.

If the American people wanted to listen to an ass, they would fart.

Donald Trump will drag the U.S. down into the cesspool with him.

Donald J. Trump -- a dictator-in-waiting 21.Oct.2016 17:11

gwai lo

Donald Trump has said that he will only accept the election outcome if he wins.
That should make it clear about what Trump as really about -- Donald Chump is only about himself -- he does not give a rats ass about the American people, because you are a means to an end -- he is only pandering for your vote --- in other words, he is brown-nosing everybody he has and will continue to insult.
A final warning to Trump supporters -- wake up and give your heads a good hard shake.

#TrumpTheEstablishment 22.Oct.2016 13:41

Published on Oct 20, 2016

Credit goes to u/trumpeffect of REDDIT.


Trump Calls Out 'Corporate Media' West Palm Beach, Florida Live Speech 10/13/2016
Let's be clear on one thing: the corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They're a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity, with a total political agenda; and the agenda is not for you [points to audience], it's for themselves.

The Rich Vote Republican? Maybe Not This Election. 22.Oct.2016 18:20


Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton on Oct. 19 in Las Vegas at the third presidential debate. A survey from July said that 45 percent of those earning more than $100,000 a year favored Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times

For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.

While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year roughly the top 25 percent of households 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.

The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more roughly the top 5 percent of households 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus four points.

It is unclear whether those patterns have changed since July. But if the numbers hold, historians and wealth experts say that next month's elections may prove to be the largest vote by the wealthy for a Democratic candidate in recent history.
Continue reading the main story

"This would be a big deal, and fundamentally different from what we've seen before," said Andrew Gelman, professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University and co-author of the book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do."

The big question is whether Mrs. Clinton's potential sweep of the elite represents a structural shift in the politics and policy preferences of the wealthy, or simply a personal aversion to Mr. Trump. Either way, the vote would break decades of Republican dominance of affluent voters in presidential elections. It would also shed light on a growing debate about whether the wealthy are tacking to the left politically as more fortunes are created and concentrated in states like California and New York and throughout the left-leaning tech industry.

"Trump could be an aberration," Mr. Gelman said. "Or this could be part of a political realignment. We probably won't know for years."

Ipsos says its data suggests that the affluent are more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. In the spring, Democratic-leaning voters making more than $100,000 were split evenly between Mrs. Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Republican-leaning affluent voters were split evenly among Mr. Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. By the end of the summer, Mrs. Clinton had picked up nearly all of the Sanders-leaning affluent voters, while Mr. Trump failed to win as many of the Cruz and Rubio voters.

"The affluent vote seems to be more about the concerns over Donald Trump than the enthusiasm for Clinton," said Stephen Kraus, chief insights officer and director of the Ipsos Affluent Survey.

Since the 1950s, with few exceptions, upper-income voters have leaned more Republican than the broader population. In a study of national elections, Mr. Gelman found that "census and opinion poll data since 1952 reveal that higher-income voters continue to support the Republicans in presidential elections."

Mr. Gelman said the wealthy naturally favored policies that favor them, and Republican staples like lower taxes and smaller government were preferable than larger government and redistribution of wealth. "They support policies that benefit their group, because in their view, those are the best policies and best ideas," he said.

If the wealthy voted according to their pocketbooks, their choice for president would be clear.

Mr. Trump has pledged to cut the federal income taxes of the top 1 percent by more than 25 percent, allowing them to keep an extra $215,000 each year, according to the Tax Policy Center. He would eliminate the estate tax, reduce regulations, cut the capital-gains tax rate and create a special, superlow tax rate for some business owners.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, would make the top 1 percent pay an average of $117,000 more a year while superearners in the top 0.1 percent would see their taxes go up more than $800,000 a year. She would also increase taxes on certain capital gains, limit loopholes used by the wealthy and target dynastic wealth with a steeper estate tax.

In recent decades, there is evidence that wealthier voters have been leaning more Republican. In 1956 and 1960, the share of Republican-identified voters in the top income quintile "was only slightly higher in the highest than in the lowest quintile," Mr. Gelman said. By 2000, those at the top were more than twice as likely to identify as Republican than those at the bottom, according to Mr. Gelman's study.

The closest comparison to the current election among affluent voters is the one in 2008, when Barack Obama carried about half of voters who earned more than $100,000. Yet Mr. Gelman said John McCain still did better among the rich than the poor, and compared with the broader electorate, the wealthy voted Republican more often.

In the current election, Mrs. Clinton is poised to capture a far larger share of the affluent vote than Mr. Obama. And if the numbers hold, the elite would lean more Democratic than Republican for the first time in at least 50 years, Mr. Gelman said.

Among the rich and superrich, the politics are more divided. In the run-up to the 2012 election, 61 percent of millionaire voters (those with investable assets of $1 million or more) supported the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, according to a survey from the Spectrem Group. In the 2008 election, while more than three-quarters of millionaire families favored Mr. McCain, two-thirds of families worth $30 million or more supported Mr. Obama.

Some argue that the rich have become more Democratic because many of the richest states, like California, New York, Connecticut and Maryland are blue. Yet Mr. Gelman's research shows that while rich states lean more Democratic, affluent voters still lean more Republican.

"The Republicans have the support of the richer voters within any given state but have more overall support in the poorer states," Mr. Gelman said. "Thus, the identification of rich states with rich voters, or more generally, the personification of so-called red and blue states, is misleading."

In the current election, of course, neither candidate is publicly courting the wealth vote. Even Mr. Trump has been labeled a populist. Yet affluent voters are 15 to 20 percent more likely to vote than the broader population, according to Ipsos. Their financial support gives the wealthy an outsize voice in campaigns.

"I don't think either candidate wants to be seen as having the support of the 1 percent right now," Mr. Kraus said, "even though they are both part of the 1 percent."

The 1% Want President Hillary Clinton 22.Oct.2016 18:42

By Alex Thompson

September 9, 2016 | 7:50 am

Polls may still show a relatively competitive presidential race, but Hillary Clinton is winning a fundraising landslide among the country's 1 percent.

Newly released campaign finance reports through the end of July show that upper-crust Republicans are not backing Donald Trump even though the majority of the party's base supports the nominee. The result is a campaign without precedent in more than a century, with elites on both sides of the aisle and from nearly every sector of American industry overwhelmingly supporting Clinton.

Well-heeled GOPers may disagree with Clinton's policies, but she appeals to people that benefit from the status quo, said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics. Her policy proposals are less drastic than Trump's, and her long history in politics makes her more predictable.

"Many donors want to maintain their relationships with decision makers, and the more eccentric Trump's campaign looks, the more problematic it looks, the more they will be driven towards Hillary," said Biersack, who worked for three decades at the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Through the end of July, 1,340 donors who gave more than $200 to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign committees and Super PACs had given to Clinton campaign committees and Super PACs but not Trump's, according to analysis by Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political crowdfunding startup.

Less than half of 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 dollars to political candidates, parties, or PACs in a given election cycle. Among that sliver of the electorate, the Clinton campaign committee has raised more than $200 million, 63 percent of the committee's total raised through the end of July. The Trump campaign committee has raised only $19.3 million from that group, or just 15 percent of its total, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have made wealthy donors all the more essential to gaining a financial edge on political opponents. The combination of 2010's Citizens United vs. FEC and 2014's McCutcheon vs. FEC removed most restrictions on individual contributions, so campaigns now focus more on courting the ultrarich, a practice known as donor maintenance; Clinton regularly attends fundraisers with just 15 people or fewer.

If the remaining campaign finance rules are too confining, donors can up their donations by giving to each candidate's allied Super PACs. Since Trump has been unable to endear himself to the normal stable of GOP high rollers, Clinton's main Super PAC Priorities USA Action has raised $109.9 million compared to Trump's $7.6 million through July.

Who currently has the edge among small donors is slightly less clear. Overall, Trump's campaign committee has raised $37.2 million to Clinton's $62.2 million from donations less than $200. But from May through July, when Trump began openly soliciting donations for the general election, Trump's campaign committee outraised Clinton's among small donors by more than $4 million.

But not even all of the wealthy Republican businesspeople on Trump's own 20-person fundraising "victory" team have donated money directly to Trump. Sam Fox, owner of the St. Louis-based Harbour Group Industries and the former ambassador to Belgium, said in an email that he is instead "concentrating my fundraising efforts on support of the Republican senatorial campaigns."

Billionaire Diane Hendricks's office said her donation would appear in the next FEC filing, which will cover August. (She became a vice chair on the fundraising team in May.)

Some conservative Super PACs are also taking a pass on Trump. The Koch brothers, who have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns since 2010, have refused to give money to the Republican nominee. And American Crossroads, a conservative Super PAC co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, is instead focusing on congressional races this cycle.

Meanwhile, hundreds of former top givers to Republicans are switching teams and giving to Clinton's candidacy instead. Several hundred donors who gave to a Republican presidential candidate in the 2016 primary are now funding Clinton in the general election. Through July, these 851 donors gave $5.4 million to Clinton's campaign committees and Super PACs, an average donation of $6,345 per person.

Trump has also lost wealthy Republicans over the past month. Meg Whitman, the president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a former Republican nominee for governor of California, announced last month that she would make a "substantial" contribution to Clinton. (She backed Chris Christie in the Republican primary.) At an event last Wednesday in Colorado on behalf of the Democratic nominee, Whitman told an audience of business leaders: "I do not feel confident with [Trump's] business record."

The financial imbalance between the two campaigns will likely continue until election day.

Mike Fernandez, a Florida healthcare magnate who gave $1 million to Romney in 2012 and more than $3 million to Jeb Bush in 2016, wrote in The Miami Herald last week that Clinton is the "far superior choice." He advised other Republicans to "swallow hard, look into your heart and your gut. Vote for Hillary Clinton and then every single Republican on the ticket."

In this election, industries that in the past have been a reliable source of Republican donations have flipped their support. Crowdpac breaks down donations by industry with the donor's employer and occupation data, which is provided to the FEC. The financial-services sector, which broke a fundraising record by giving $69.5 million to Romney's campaign committee and his Super PACs in 2012, will likely donate even more to Clinton this cycle. Through the end of July, her campaign committee and Super PAC received $58.4 million from the sector, while Trump's campaign committee and Super PAC got just $5.4 million.

Crowdpac splits the American economy into 10 broad industry categories; according to their tally, nine of these have given substantially more money to Clinton's campaign committee and Super PAC than Trump's. The only industry to favor Trump was agriculture, with $1.2 million raised for Trump compared to Clinton's $977,000.

You need to go all the way back to 1896 to find another election in which the country's economic elites so disproportionately favored one candidate. Then as now, a fiery populist denouncing a rigged system unexpectedly snatched a major party nomination. That man, Democrat William Jennings Bryan, raised $300,000. Meanwhile, American industry rallied behind Republican William McKinley and stuffed his campaign coffers with a then unheard-of $4 million.

Related: Hillary Clinton told the FBI she didn't think drone strike plans were classified

A galvanizing orator, Bryan criss-crossed the country giving electric rallies while McKinley spent his vast campaign funds printing more than 200 million pamphlets (the US population was about 70 million at the time). McKinley won in a landslide. Rove, who recently wrote a well-received book on the 1896 election, attributed much of McKinley's success to the "almost industrial scale" of his campaign.

Since then, no other candidate has been so decisively outraised. Even other "outsider" candidates like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern had wealthy constituencies that dug into their deep pockets. But Trump seems to have no natural ideological or business financial base. Even among donors in the real estate industry, where Trump spent his entire career, Clinton is outraising him $9.5 million to $1.1 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The financial imbalance between the two campaigns will likely continue until election day. In August, the Clinton campaign along with the DNC and state parties said they raised $143 million, while Trump's campaign and party committees reported about $50 million less than that. Clinton and her advisers no doubt recall, however, that wealthy Republicans spent millions of dollars against Trump during the Republican primary. The result? He received more votes than any Republican primary candidate in history.

the Establishment GOP hates Trump 23.Oct.2016 06:50


Which should tell you all you need to know.

^ agreed, .i. 23.Oct.2016 08:11


the RNC and Republican establishment has spent millions $$ this year,

attempting to destroy Trump's candidacy (after having mainly used behind-scenes lobbying prior to and during the primary season when he had over a dozen GOP challengers, including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio who were the favored selections).

When the initial phase didn't work it then became time to actually start spending serious money to directly defeat him. They gathered an elite commission to strategize and accomplish this goal (which failed).

The amount of denial of these facts, by both corporate mass media and also leftist (so-called?...) politicians and activists is staggering.

it's so pervasive that it makes one wonder about the degree of brainwashing (or sheer denial) presently operative with many Americans who call themselves or associate with either left politics or the Democratic Party.

and in addition, the degree of brainwashing which seems ? to be desired on the part of corporate mass media, for a message to be delivered to a greater number of Americans who aren't really politically aligned or informed; simply that Trump is no more than another 'bad candidate' / poor choice for president this year....

as long as no one comprehends, understands or discusses the undisputed fact and geopolitical strategy that Wall Street and GOP elites are dead set against Trump being in the White House.
Only then, has the corporate mass media been successful in their sidelong disinformation-by-omission.
( And of course, it manifests on Indymedia even in the form of gwai lo, plus KBOO hosts and callers who rail against "fascist / racist Trump" et cetera )

one may 'hate' Trump (and actually this year, this includes millions of registered Republicans who will reluctantly / holding-their-nose cast a vote for him) but at least have the honesty and/or cranial capacity to acknowledge that a huge sector of the wealthy establishment is 100% aligned against his candidacy, and has i.e. his own 'side', key elements of the Republican Party leadership incl. Paul Ryan for example who has now definitively split with the Trump candidacy spent millions of dollars to prevent his nomination, support the opposite major corporate party candidate directly (this includes prominent Neocons and Republicans openly supporting Hillary) and-or otherwise sink him.

+ Addendum context to above comment 23.Oct.2016 08:30


the other side of the coin here (author: gwai lo's "crooked Donald Trump" post and likewise observations),

is that every time you see on Indymedia, hear on KBOO, Democracy Now or any other purportedly leftist source or individual about how irredeemably (ironic eh?) bad, evil, impossible it would be to have DT in the White House,

there is absolutely zero discussion of the Democratic Party corruption which has been now indisputably 100% documented via WikiLeaks, the deliberate sinking and betrayal of the 2016 Sanders candidacy (along with his own capitulation to the DNC powers-that-be even after their chair was forced to resign as a result of the WikiLeaks Dump)  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433214.shtml

aw but, can't talk about that now / it's not nearly as important as "we gotta vote against Trump" (quoting Noam Chomsky et al.)