Trump Becomes Gop Presidential Candidate - Muslim Elected As Mayor Of London

What a difference a day makes on either side of the Atlantic.
As Donald Trump defeats everyone in his path to become the official GOP Presidential candidate in a campaign that was riddled with divisive speeches, the largest capital city in Europe, one of the largest in the world, and the first in the western world for centuries, has elected by 56% of the vote in the highest turnout so far, a Muslim executive Mayor of London. Sadiq Khan, son of a bus driver and seamstress - working-class immigrants from Pakistan - who grew up in a 3 bed council flat ('apartment' on a 'project') with his parents and seven siblings, now has the power to influence the daily lives of 9 million people, who speak more native languages than anywhere else on this planet. To do that, he comprehensively beat the silver-spoon fed son of a multi-billionaire financier. The parallels with the non-establishment, even anti-establishment Trump and Khan cannot be ignored. They both won in big part precisely because they are not a part of nor fit the 'establishment class'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36236538

 

Not sure about the UK, but I am sick of our politicians in the US. They say one thing, do another. Maybe it is time to shake it up.

 

My god this world is going to end.

 

Nobody is getting out if this alive Wile e...

 

I'm quite looking forward to Donald Trump beating Hillary. At least he isn't in the pockets of several big industries as she is. And considering she described black men as 'predators' and welfare claimants as 'deadbeats' years before Trump ever uttered a word, Trump can't be that bad. And if the UK leaves the EU Trump would be a far better person to negotiate a trade deal with than Clinton.

 

Your Fired

This is what is going to happen when he's in office.Fires every one on the first day.

 

I can't wait to see the first debate between Trump and whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Should be, interesting, to say the least.

 

Where all doomed if trump is president or hillary.

 

Well, what is the alternative? The Burn? And why doomed if the Trump gets the job?

 

Interesting indeed! I am still in a state of stunned disbelief that Trump is the GOP nominee. Strange days ahead.

 

This nation has been following history.

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-life-cycles-of-empires-lessons-for-america-today

1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
2. The age of conquests.
3. The age of commerce.
4. The age of affluence.
5. The age of intellect.
6. The age of decadence.
7. The age of decline and collapse.

Sowing the seeds of decline
During the age of intellect, schools may produce skeptical intellectuals who oppose the values and religious beliefs of their empires' early leaders.

 

The Burn here is one.

 

Trump's ties to organized crime is enough to give me plenty of second thoughts about voting for him. He was a draft dodger back in 1968. Then there's all his bigoted rhetoric. He's a "birther", and the real coup de grace of his personality is his absolute juvenility and puerile character. Additionally, he's not presidential material by any stretch of the imagination.

Is Hillary any better? Frankly, she's no worse.

 

Agreed. I'm not overly fond of Clinton. I would have preferred that her geriatric opponent became the democratic nominee. However, the prospect of having an infantile, school yard bully as POTUS is nauseating. I'll take Clinton, thank you.

 

I have to disagree, Trump is not a Birther. He did a political ploy and dropped the ball.

The whole birther stuff is a ruse. Barry Soetero is not a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the Constitution of the United States of America. Neither is Cruz.

To be a "Natural Born Citizen" one has to have both parents as US citizens at time of birth. Barry's dad is Kenyan.

Cruz's dad eventually did become a citizen, but was not at his birth.

All the other gobbledeegoop about where Barry was born is only to prove if he is actually even a citizen, which really don't matter because he misses the mark on "natural born citizen" because of his father.

And no, native born is not the same thing.

The ONLY place "natural born citizen is ever referred to reference or required is for the presidency. Any and all previous scotus decisions are not for this specific qualification.

And since the Constitution was written for the people, it is not up to lawyers and politicians to re define what things mean.

The plain language and concept of the requirement is painfully clear.

Starting with city counsel and moving on the president, the residency, age and citizen status is incrementally more strict, the higher the position held. Thus any logical and reasonable conclusion is that the requirements for president would be of the strictest and hardest to meet standards.

The founders knew that the loyalty of the leader should be held with the highest standards, and one way to ensure this would be to have that person raised by parents who were citizens.

This has never been to the Supreme court for a ruling, and all previous similar decisions carry no bearing on this one and only one circumstance of special citizenship.

Trump made a feeble attempt to win favor or to look like an allie of the patriots, without totally burning bridges to the cronies in charge.

There really is only one way to fix this government, and that is with a complete and total overhaul, every nation does this.

The relevant question would be:

Will technology and fast communications, speed or hinder, the inevitable course of history?

And Hillary is worse by far, unless your idea is like mine. First time she tried and lost to Barry, I had said I would vote for her. Not because she would be good, but rather she would be so bad the the decline would happen so fast and obvious that people would have to get off the butts and do something.

The blind little sheeple would be hurting so bad they would be up in arms and change would be forced as the collapse of the USA was expedited by her idealism.

But how could I have known that Barry would have done a better job? I was able to buy a house for cash because the economy tanked so bad. The peple of the USA have survived in spite of Barry and his slavery inducing idealisms.

Hillary wants your guns, that way it won't be so bloody when she places the final shackles on the American People.

 

"Agreed. I'm not overly fond of Clinton. I would have preferred that her geriatric opponent became the democratic nominee. However, the prospect of having an infantile, school yard bully as POTUS is nauseating. I'll take Clinton, thank you."

I see this is delving close to a HBT topic, hopefully this is OK to post. Hillary is currently under serious investigation by Obama's FBI for possible espionage. She lied to the country and the families of the our consulate in Bengazi, blaming the attacks on a YouTube video, while she sent emails saying it was a terrorist attack.

Does not sound very presidential to me. Heck, she even mistook her plane landing when she was First Lady as being under "sniper fire".

"Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated."

The Democratic candidate is engaged in a frantic damage-limitation exercise amid widespread derision of her comments about a visit to Tuzla in 1996.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00660/news-graphics-2008-_660081a.jpg​

"I remember landing under sniper fire," she said in Washington on Monday. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

From the same link: "Mrs Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that she had made the mistake about sniper fire because she had been "sleep-deprived". Her schedule showed she had no public engagements the day before her Washington speech and she spent the night in her Embassy Row home."

That was in 1996, ten years ago. I would think she has no character or may be losing her mental capacity. Don't want here near the White House.

 

Agreed. She is not my first choice for POTUS. However, she's a better choice than the misogynistic, racist Trump. Here's an interesting Op-ed suggesting that the GOP is dead..
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-republicans-in-exile-20160508-story.html​

 

So Hillary is an misandrist.

 

Perhaps. If you have evidence to support that she doesn't like men. I really don't like her enough to energetically defend her. Heh. But, she's a far better choice than the Donald. Trump is running for the position of POTUS, one of the most powerful people on Earth. Trump has no political experience. Zip. Nada. Clinton is a Senator and she was Secretary of State.

 

Had to throw it out there for levity if nothing else. We hear of hatred toward women but never hear of the other side of the coin. I don't know if she hates men or not same as I don't know if Trump hates women or not, and I sure don't believe what I read in someone's opinion. I actually believe we don't have and haven't had a decent choice for quite a while now.

 

For a real choice I would rather see the likes of Condi Rice and/or Colin Powell for either ticket. Felt the same way 8 years ago.

 

Agreed. Those would be exceptional choices. It would be nice if the Democratic bench was a bit deeper.

 

Espionage? For whom?

 

FOX News reported something about it last October, but I haven't been able to find anything further.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...il-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision.html

 

Email server off government property.

"
The Hillary Clinton email controversy began in March 2015, when it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as United States Secretary of State, had exclusively used her family's privateemail server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Those official communications included thousands of emails that would later be marked classified by the State Department.

Debate continues as to the propriety and legality of various aspects of Secretary Clinton's arrangement. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress have contended that her use of privatemessaging system software, a private server, and her deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she and her lawyer regarded as private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, as well as federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping. In response, Clinton has said that her use of personal email was in compliance with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts.

Nearly 2,100 emails on the server have been retroactively marked as classified by the State Department. They were not marked as classified at the time they were sent. This includes 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". Government policy, reiterated in the non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton as part of gaining her security clearance, is that sensitive information should be considered and handled as classified even if not marked as such. After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question fell into this category, a probe was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding how classified information was handled on the Clinton server. The controversy continues against the backdrop of Clinton's 2016 presidential election campaign and hearings held by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

 

Espionage is spying, like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. It's interesting how some are aghast over those emails and turn a blind eye to fraud.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421236/donald-trump-university-scam-candidate-2016
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/01/news/companies/donald-trump-university-fraud-case/
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-donald-trump-university-fraud-20160506-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

 

Never said I was all about the Trump. Christopher Stevens might wonder if his schedule was on her server, and hacked.... Oh, wait, he dead.

If Trump committed fraud, why is the FBI not investigating him?

 

Exactly how is hillary not divorcing billy for cheating, not a slap in the face to every woman on the planet?

 

A question better asked in 1998. There are so very many more relevant questions to ask at this point.

As for it being a slap in the face... I am in no way threatened or offended by it. I'm not part of their marriage, and I understand the wide variety of reasons why someone would cheat and why someone would forgive them for doing so.

 

Powell lied through his teeth about alleged 'facts' for the justification of the illegal invasion of Iraq - he did that on TV and at the formal UN meetings about it. If he wasn't a politician he would have been in prison for perjury. A war that as you all know between 2003-2008 alone cost significantly more to the US taxpayer than the entire cost of the banking bailout.

 

This points back to my earlier post

Sowing the seeds of decline
During the age of intellect, schools may produce skeptical intellectuals who oppose the values and religious beliefs of their empires' early leaders.

Reasons, excuses etc, change in moral values, taught and festered in the public indoctrination centers (public schools).

There is no legitimate excuse I can see. The man has/had no morals, the woman has no morals. She is a power hungry misogynist. (she hates women) She sets a bad example for women all over the nation and world.

It is far easier to corrupt a person than to bring them back to integrity.

So rather than do the correct thing and hold them accountable, it is far easier to make excuses for the behavior and accept it as normal? This seems to be a betrayal to all women. It pretty much says it is ok to disregard your woman (yes possessive tense) and do what you want, vs love, protect and honor her.

Is that what women of today really want? I am baffled by the apathy and defense of this behavior.

Double standards and hypocrisy come to mind.

Women: "If my man ever cheated on me I/he would be out the door."
Me: "Then why would you vote for Hillary?"

 

The problem is, not all women are still living in 1950, thus are not interested in being protected by our man. Some of us are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves, and are looking for a partner rather than a protector. As I said, I am not part of their marriage, so I have no idea what actually took place, what conversations were had, what conditions were set, what arrangements were made, and what understanding was reached. All I know from the outside, which is where everyone other than the two of them sit, is that he got a blow job under his desk and it didn't cause their divorce. Almost 20 years ago. Dead issue.

You seem to think I am defending it. I am not. I am also not vilifying it. You know why? I'll say it again. I'm not part of their marriage.

You also assume that every woman on the planet says she'd walk out if her husband cheated on her. Reality says that's not true. A large number of women remain married when their husband cheats. A large number of men remain married when their wife cheats. Each marriage is different, so unless you are one of the spouses involved, you really have no cause or right to foist your opinion on how they have chosen to work it out.

 

Whether a person stays with a partner or not after an affair or any other kind of infidelity doesn't really connect with the politics.
Maybe that's why turnouts in Presidential elections are so abysmally low usually. Bill Clinton cut welfare by more than any previous or post President. He was the one changing the banking laws in 1998 that allowed the banking fraud and global crash. Hillary has very dirty hands in Honduras, Libya and called black men predators and welfare claimants dead beats. They are both part of a disreputable arrangement, plenty of reasons to reject her politically.
The fact is the only candidate of late that would make it worth some of the 40-50% who never vote, to vote, is Bernie Sanders.

 

Exactly. There are so many better, more relevant questions to raise about her candidacy that bringing up an affair that happened before those old enough to vote in this election were born is lunacy.

 

Haven't you guys milked the Benghazi cow enough?
http://s32.postimg.org/u4spg2xed/latest_cb_20140910224148.png

If Trump committed fraud, why is the FBI not investigating him?[/QUOTE]
Ask US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman isn't holding back, though.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/news/companies/donald-trump-eric-schneiderman/

 

Here's just some of the controversies around both Clintons. How anyone would want 4 or 8 more years of such is beyond me. And so Colin Powell lied. And I guess no one else in the running here has never done that or worse.


http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html

 

"Haven't you guys milked the Benghazi cow enough?"
Goes under job performance as Sec of State. Thus a record of poor performance, lying, and basic poor character. She lied to the faces of the families of the people killed. Shows very poor character to me, and not someone I would want to be in charge of anything. She also lied about landing and being under sniper fire... When a girl was handing her flowers...

From your linked article Just Playing, "Schneiderman said thousands of students paid millions of dollars to the school, which closed in 2010. While the attorney general's suit is a civil suit rather than a criminal action, Trump could face millions in fines, Schneiderman said."

I admit I am not very familiar with that case against Trump. But, it is a civil case, not one that violates federal laws.

 

Barack Obama was born on American soil, and his mother was a United States citizen by birth. Basically what mag00 is telling me is that I'm not a natural born citizen either, because my father was not born on American soil. This is absolute poppycock. I am a natural born citizen of the United States via "jus soli" just like everyone else born on American soil. Such is our nation's policy, unlike many others who apply "jus sanguinis" which is what mag00 describes.

 

And, I almost forgot. Barack Obama's father was a British subject. Kenya as mag00 describes it did not exist back then.

 

That is not what I am saying, your father and mother both need to be citizens, not born here. Cruz's dad was not a citizen of the USA at the time of his birth, thus he is not a natural born citizen. Barry's dad never even became a US citizen.

If your father is not a citizen, you may be a citizen, but just not a "natural born citizen"

 

you missed the one attacking me, the one I was responding to in defense of their attack on me. I don't really mind, it is just discussion, but leaving posts stand that are stating I said things I did not say after removing my posts stating such or asking for clarification is just wrong.

Like my recent response to mekanic. I never said "jus sanguinis" I don't even know what it means, but it sure looks like an attack to me. I'm OK, I educate, you may not like the truth, but it needs to be said.

 

And the supreme court has not ruled on the meaning and intent of using the specific term "natural born citizen" as it applies to presidency requirement, and that is the ONLY place it has relevance.

A citizen tried to take it to the supreme court and was denied. What was the reason he was denied his day in court?

They are all in on it. Aristocrats vs workers. fighting amongst ourselves is not the solution. Those in power love it though

 

This, yes. And they are all F'd up.

 

Did she?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...libya_n_1962397.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/ahmed-abu-khattala-libya_n_1981636.html

 

I see we don't hear much of the new mayor of London?

 

Listen, if you don't know the difference between "jus soli" and "jus sanguinis", your post has no factual academic foundation. Our country's policy is "jus soli" for the purposes of natural born citizenship, regardless of the opinion in your posts.

Even if it is ruled that "jus sanguinis" rules our citizenship policy, you are still incorrect.

 

Never heard much about the old one either.

 

Yeah - the first post had quite a bit more on him than Trump then it all switched. What we here call a sales tactic of bait and switch.