The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

I think it has to be more than that doesn't it? He's from within the more progressive arm of the tribe, whatever titles people want to give him. I mean, if he'd run independent, sure.

Well. People in the Democrats are seeing him as the sort of person who is airing every damn dirty linen Hillary has and thus damaging her chances against Trump. They see him as a liability for their ability to win the election.

Quite frankly, this sort of ridiculous behaviour is delusional. What Sanders does to Hillary will probably be mild when Trump starts to roll up his vitriol storm generator.

He's not a villain, he's just a douche who doesn't know when to quit. Also a whore as I've pointed out. And if you're a liberal who would vote for the Democrat Al Gore (who did, you know, win) if Ralph Nader wasn't running, then yeah, you might as well have voted for Bush. Just because facts make your asshole itch doesn't mean they aren't facts. If every liberal "they're both the same!" Douchebag who voted Nader over Gore had instead cast a vote for Gore hundreds of thousands of dead people wouldn't be dead. Simply no war of choice in Iraq proves this.

Let's be honest here; you just don't like the man for whatever reasons you can cook up with really.

I actually have no personal issue with him. I enjoyed his interviews on shows like Countdown With Keith Olbermann, The Rachel Maddow Show, and others. I probably agree with him on more issues than I do Clinton. It's his conduct I take issue with.

[Patroklos]

That and I make a habit of covering and calling out political violence in my posts, and it would be hypocritical to only call it out when Right wingers do it. So I'm being consistent here.

Its a pretty selective habit when you lead with this given events in the last few days.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I admittedly miss some individual incidents, but I try to post on incidents from a variety of different sources, rather than just those caused by one part of the political spectrum.

If you are suggesting that I condone or turn a blind eye toward political violence in any context, you are making a very serious mistake.

[Flagg]

Well, I admittedly miss some individual incidents, but I try to post on incidents from a variety of different sources, rather than just those caused by one part of the political spectrum.

If you are suggesting that I condone or turn a blind eye toward political violence in any context, you are making a very serious mistake.

Why? You gonna beat him up after school?

[The Romulan Republic]

I merely mean that it would be a severe mischaracterization of my position on the subject, of course.

Anyway, back on topic, the Governor of California has endorsed Clinton. Surprised it took this long, but maybe they timed it for maximum impact right before the Primary.

[maraxus2]

He wouldn't be stealing votes from Sec. Clinton. They're not hers. They belong to voters, who can cast them for whomever they want. She earns them, or Sen. Sanders earns them, or whoever else earns them. Someone voting for Sen. Sanders or Donald Trump instead of Sec. Clinton isn't anyone stealing anything. Using language like that implies the sort of entitlement which enflames the resentment driving part of the dislike for "establishment" candidates.

Once again, you are technically correct, the best kind of correct. But you miss the forest for the trees.

This is basically the Naderite argument, in that Sanders would be acting like a spoiler in the election were he to run as an independent. He would have no chance of winning, since he could not realistically cobble together 270 electoral college votes. That means that he'd be splitting the left-wing vote between himself and Clinton. Now that doesn't mean that Clinton is entitled to those votes, but it does mean that Bernie will be effectively taking those votes away from the progressive movement.

Nader did basically the same thing in 2000, which you and a couple of other folks took umbrage with. But the basic reality is this; whatever you want to say about Al Gore and his campaign, they were all trying to get him elected. They were all trying to push that rock up their side of the hill. Likewise with Bush; his people were also trying to push their rock up their side of the hill. Ralph Nader was literally the only person involved in the race on the liberal side who was trying to push Gore's rock down the hill. He was trying to get Bush elected from the left. Bernie would be in effectively the same position if he ran as an independent.

Anyway, back on topic, the Governor of California has endorsed Clinton. Surprised it took this long, but maybe they timed it for maximum impact right before the Primary.

Moonbeam and Bill Clinton go back a looooooooong way. There's never been much love lost between them. Not that his endorsement will do much for Hillary anyway. Endorsements don't matter much this election. If they did, Bernie'd been vanquished long ago.

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

I mean, they're right about that tho. And this seems like a pretty clear case of projection to me; you clearly do think that Clinton's evil. I don't think Bernie's evil. I think he's run a hell of a campaign. I don't think he can win, and I'd like him to stop fucking around with the candidate who can actually win the damn election.

See the difference there?

[Napoleon the Clown]

The sheer amount of vitriol lobbed at him indicates people either believe he's a villain or simply want this cycle to be an coronation rather than an actual election. I've seen people say that voting 3rd party is the same as voting for the Republicans, so it's pretty clear he's damned regardless of how he could have ran.

I mean, they're right about that tho. And this seems like a pretty clear case of projection to me; you clearly do think that Clinton's evil. I don't think Bernie's evil. I think he's run a hell of a campaign. I don't think he can win, and I'd like him to stop fucking around with the candidate who can actually win the damn election.

See the difference there?

Her actions as Secretary of State have been pretty objectively harmful overseas. Should I just ignore what's happened to people outside the US because of her hawkwish policies? The DNC doesn't give a damn what people who aren't registered as Democrats think, so I guess as an American I shouldn't give a damn about non-Americans.

My take on Hillary is that she won't burn everything down for a laugh, unlike the Donald. However, I completely expect a sparkly new war to started within a year of her inauguration. Probably using some euphemism to pretend it isn't a war. I don't want that. I don't want the economy to be built up on a bubble like it was during Bill's tenure. We can all remember the Dot Com bust at the end of Bill's time as POTUS. The housing bubble was growing under his watch. There are many things to a Hillary presidency I think will be actively harmful. Personally, I don't like the risk I see of her putting forward a SCOTUS nominee that is weak on abortion or LGBT rights in the name of "political expedience." She's outright stated she accepts restrictions on late-term abortions. Her position on LGBT rights reflects what public opinion polls say is most prevalent. How am I to trust she'll remain an ally to all of my LGBT friends if her positions always shift at the same time as public opinion?

I don't think Hillary is evil. I think she's very intelligent, driven, and utterly self-interested. Like the majority of POTUS candidates. I was really hoping at an opportunity to have something else. But it's obviously not going to happen, unless Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Which I do not consider to be likely at all.

Maybe it's hyperbolic to say that the loudest Bernie-opposers think he's evil. But there's an enormous amount of vitriol flying at him. He's not gonna run 3rd party. He's said he'll endorse Hillary Clinton if (when) she clinches the nomination. This is the best case scenario for the DNC, so long as they don't poison all good-will with his supporters. He'll be out of the running, the only votes that he pulls away from Hillary being those from people who decide to write him in regardless of him throwing his support behind Hillary.

I'm well aware that the DNC can't do much about their unpaid supporters being dickbags. I've seen hostility on both sides, and think that in battleground states it's ultimately better to smother one's conscience with a pillow and vote for someone who will increase military conflict in the Middle East but at least not roll back every minority right possible back home while simultaneously pissing off every country on Earth.

I want to know what way Bernie could have tried running for POTUS without being "bad" for doing it. He was a Democrat in all but name for years. He caucused with them. He voted in line with them on procedural matters. 93% of the votes between Bernie and Hillary were the same while they were serving in the Senate together. Once all of this is said and done, he'll remain a member of the Democratic party.

[maraxus2]

Her actions as Secretary of State have been pretty objectively harmful overseas. Should I just ignore what's happened to people outside the US because of her hawkwish policies? The DNC doesn't give a damn what people who aren't registered as Democrats think, so I guess as an American I shouldn't give a damn about non-Americans.

A political party that caters more to people inside the party than outside? I'm shocked! Also, yes, I feel like this is the correct conclusion to draw.

My take on Hillary is that she won't burn everything down for a laugh, unlike the Donald. However, I completely expect a sparkly new war to started within a year of her inauguration. Probably using some euphemism to pretend it isn't a war. I don't want that. I don't want the economy to be built up on a bubble like it was during Bill's tenure. We can all remember the Dot Com bust at the end of Bill's time as POTUS. The housing bubble was growing under his watch. There are many things to a Hillary presidency I think will be actively harmful. Personally, I don't like the risk I see of her putting forward a SCOTUS nominee that is weak on abortion or LGBT rights in the name of "political expedience." She's outright stated she accepts restrictions on late-term abortions. Her position on LGBT rights reflects what public opinion polls say is most prevalent. How am I to trust she'll remain an ally to all of my LGBT friends if her positions always shift at the same time as public opinion?

1. The President has really very little control over whether a bubble is getting bigger, especially when the opposition controls Congress and nobody has much of an appetite for regulating tech stocks in the first place. But you seem to miss the fact that the thing that made Bill Clinton so popular when he left office was that the economy was doing *really really well*. That's why my folks stayed Democrats, despite literally everyone else in our family voting Republican.
2. Do you seriously think Hillary Clinton, the first female President of the United States, is going to put someone on the Supreme Court with a weak-kneed position on abortion?
3. Do you seriously think that Hillary Clinton is going to roll back LGBTQ protections? The woman who gave the "Gay rights are human rights" speech in Geneva and consistently supported LGBTQ protections as SoS, Senator, and First Lady? On what basis do you make this claim. Do you have some reason to think that LGBTQ rights are going to become less popular among Democrats than they are right now?

I don't think Hillary is evil. I think she's very intelligent, driven, and utterly self-interested. Like the majority of POTUS candidates. I was really hoping at an opportunity to have something else. But it's obviously not going to happen, unless Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Which I do not consider to be likely at all.

Again, Hillary's a self-interested, intelligent, and driven candidate? Who the hell do you think has the gumption to run for President? More than one political observer has remarked that running for President is prima face evidence that you have an underlying personality disorder.

Maybe it's hyperbolic to say that the loudest Bernie-opposers think he's evil. But there's an enormous amount of vitriol flying at him. He's not gonna run 3rd party. He's said he'll endorse Hillary Clinton if (when) she clinches the nomination. This is the best case scenario for the DNC, so long as they don't poison all good-will with his supporters. He'll be out of the running, the only votes that he pulls away from Hillary being those from people who decide to write him in regardless of him throwing his support behind Hillary.

Hold on there dingus. It's not like the DNC is the one going around whining about "real delegates." It's not Hillary Clinton pissing and moaning about how the system is rigged. It's not Hillary Clinton suggesting to gullible supporters that a loss is indicative of theft, not merely, y'know, losing.

FWIW, the "vitriol" directed Bernie's way is really quite mild compared to how Presidential campaigns normally go. Virtually every reporter who was active back in 2007-8 and remains active now agrees that the Obama-Clinton fight was *much* nastier. For the most part, criticisms against Bernie have some basis in reality. It's not a smear to point out that his tax plan makes no sense, or that his healthcare plan didn't even work in his own home state. It's also not a smear to point out that his delegates, by and large, come from caucuses with absolutely pathetic turnout and come from a fundamentally undemocratic process.

I'm well aware that the DNC can't do much about their unpaid supporters being dickbags. I've seen hostility on both sides, and think that in battleground states it's ultimately better to smother one's conscience with a pillow and vote for someone who will increase military conflict in the Middle East but at least not roll back every minority right possible back home while simultaneously pissing off every country on Earth.

I notice you live in Utah, so nobody cares about your vote, but you should feel free to smother away anyway. Your strawman of Clinton's positions, however, on't hold up. For a dude who claims to listen to Black Women because they're oppressed, you don't seem to care too much about what would likely happen to them under a Trump presidency.

I want to know what way Bernie could have tried running for POTUS without being "bad" for doing it. He was a Democrat in all but name for years. He caucused with them. He voted in line with them on procedural matters. 93% of the votes between Bernie and Hillary were the same while they were serving in the Senate together. Once all of this is said and done, he'll remain a member of the Democratic party.

Dude, he had his shot. He ran for president, had a hell of a campaign, and he lost. I don't have a problem with him running; I have a problem with him going around and suggesting that Hillary Clinton didn't win the primary legit. Now that he's not doing that anymore, I don't need to care so much.

[Flagg]

I've come to the conclusion that most people dislike the Republican spread, mass media adopted caricature of Hillary Clinton as opposed to the actual politician Hillary Clinton who is barely a cunthair to the right of Obama on foreign policy, which is bad, but not Donny Douchebag batshit nukey nukey crazy. I think people suggesting she would start a war with Iran may actually have brains of Terry Schiavo (kinda alive-o) consistency.

[Raw Shark]

I've come to the conclusion that most people dislike the Republican spread, mass media adopted caricature of Hillary Clinton as opposed to the actual politician Hillary Clinton who is barely a cunthair to the right of Obama on foreign policy, which is bad, but not Donny Douchebag batshit nukey nukey crazy. I think people suggesting she would start a war with Iran may actually have brains of Terry Schiavo (kinda alive-o) consistency.

I think that she would go with current popular opinion on that subject, and I don't feel very good about popular opinion on that subject right now (at the risk of being a person who draws accusations of sexism from folks who are quick to sling them, one of us who is not me is the first to use the word "whore" in this thread). I'd rather have a president who thinks that we should prioritize putting our own house in order before fucking around elsewhere.

[Flagg]

I've come to the conclusion that most people dislike the Republican spread, mass media adopted caricature of Hillary Clinton as opposed to the actual politician Hillary Clinton who is barely a cunthair to the right of Obama on foreign policy, which is bad, but not Donny Douchebag batshit nukey nukey crazy. I think people suggesting she would start a war with Iran may actually have brains of Terry Schiavo (kinda alive-o) consistency.

I think that she would go with current popular opinion on that subject, and I don't feel very good about popular opinion on that subject right now (at the risk of being a person who draws accusations of sexism from folks who are quick to sling them, one of us who is not me is the first to use the word "whore" in this thread). I'd rather have a president who thinks that we should prioritize putting our own house in order before fucking around elsewhere.

Any sex can be a whore. You specifically said she would get votes only on account of her female genitalia. Figure it out, pumpkin head.

[Raw Shark]

You specifically said she would get votes only on account of her female genitalia. Figure it out, pumpkin head.

Again, I said and/or. Anecdotally, I've personally spoken to a lot of people who actually are voting for her at least partially because they'd like to see a woman in the Oval Office. I think that, isolated from the issues, that is an admirable goal, but I refuse to let it be the final arbitrator of the presidency. I'd like to see a female POTUS, but only one with positions that I agree with. I don't agree with Hils. She supported the Patriot Act. She is hawkish. She runs dirty campaigns. She is friendly to Big Money. I do not oppose her because of her vagina. I like vaginas a lot, which is really not a secret around here. I oppose her because of the shit that comes out of her mouth.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Her actions as Secretary of State have been pretty objectively harmful overseas. Should I just ignore what's happened to people outside the US because of her hawkwish policies? The DNC doesn't give a damn what people who aren't registered as Democrats think, so I guess as an American I shouldn't give a damn about non-Americans.

A political party that caters more to people inside the party than outside? I'm shocked! Also, yes, I feel like this is the correct conclusion to draw.

Question: Can the Democrats win the presidency without votes coming from those not registered as Democrats? Why should someone vote for a group that refuses to pretend to think about representing them? This is the same fucking thing Mittens cheesed Democrats off with when he made his 47% comment! "They'll never vote for me, so fuck 'em!"

My take on Hillary is that she won't burn everything down for a laugh, unlike the Donald. However, I completely expect a sparkly new war to started within a year of her inauguration. Probably using some euphemism to pretend it isn't a war. I don't want that. I don't want the economy to be built up on a bubble like it was during Bill's tenure. We can all remember the Dot Com bust at the end of Bill's time as POTUS. The housing bubble was growing under his watch. There are many things to a Hillary presidency I think will be actively harmful. Personally, I don't like the risk I see of her putting forward a SCOTUS nominee that is weak on abortion or LGBT rights in the name of "political expedience." She's outright stated she accepts restrictions on late-term abortions. Her position on LGBT rights reflects what public opinion polls say is most prevalent. How am I to trust she'll remain an ally to all of my LGBT friends if her positions always shift at the same time as public opinion?

1. The President has really very little control over whether a bubble is getting bigger, especially when the opposition controls Congress and nobody has much of an appetite for regulating tech stocks in the first place. But you seem to miss the fact that the thing that made Bill Clinton so popular when he left office was that the economy was doing *really really well*. That's why my folks stayed Democrats, despite literally everyone else in our family voting Republican.
2. Do you seriously think Hillary Clinton, the first female President of the United States, is going to put someone on the Supreme Court with a weak-kneed position on abortion?
3. Do you seriously think that Hillary Clinton is going to roll back LGBTQ protections? The woman who gave the "Gay rights are human rights" speech in Geneva and consistently supported LGBTQ protections as SoS, Senator, and First Lady? On what basis do you make this claim. Do you have some reason to think that LGBTQ rights are going to become less popular among Democrats than they are right now?

1. The housing bubble is something that happened because of increasing deregulation of lending practices. At one time, you needed a 20% downpayment to qualify for a home loan by law. This began to change under Reagan, triggering the Savings and Loan crisis. Bill made zero efforts to reverse this trend. I can lay at least some of it at his feet.
2. Given her stated position on late-term abortions? Given that she proudly admits to being a moderate? I can see her making a concession on a great many things just for the sake of getting someone in there who's tougher on, say, guns. I'll give her this: She's been very consistent on gun control and I admire that. We need it badly.
3. She wasn't "for" gay marriage until it was popular. Her positions have shifted with the winds. Her political career has been focused on what would win her votes and support. Bernie has been consistent in his beliefs that gays are people too. He has held views of equality before they were popular because they were the right thing. Excuse me if I don't believe Hillary to be entirely sincere when her opinions on social matters seem to reflect what 51% of Americans believe.

I don't think Hillary is evil. I think she's very intelligent, driven, and utterly self-interested. Like the majority of POTUS candidates. I was really hoping at an opportunity to have something else. But it's obviously not going to happen, unless Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Which I do not consider to be likely at all.

Again, Hillary's a self-interested, intelligent, and driven candidate? Who the hell do you think has the gumption to run for President? More than one political observer has remarked that running for President is prima face evidence that you have an underlying personality disorder.

Seeking positions of power generally indicates someone who wants power for the sake of power, yes. But it's not 100% of the time the case. Unless Bernie has been playing the mother of long games, it's pretty clear that he wants to do good. His entire purpose in running was to bring attention to issues, and at this point among those issues he feels needs to be addressed is the way primaries are handled. He's damn passionate, and passion can make fools of us all.

Maybe it's hyperbolic to say that the loudest Bernie-opposers think he's evil. But there's an enormous amount of vitriol flying at him. He's not gonna run 3rd party. He's said he'll endorse Hillary Clinton if (when) she clinches the nomination. This is the best case scenario for the DNC, so long as they don't poison all good-will with his supporters. He'll be out of the running, the only votes that he pulls away from Hillary being those from people who decide to write him in regardless of him throwing his support behind Hillary.

Hold on there dingus. It's not like the DNC is the one going around whining about "real delegates." It's not Hillary Clinton pissing and moaning about how the system is rigged. It's not Hillary Clinton suggesting to gullible supporters that a loss is indicative of theft, not merely, y'know, losing.

FWIW, the "vitriol" directed Bernie's way is really quite mild compared to how Presidential campaigns normally go. Virtually every reporter who was active back in 2007-8 and remains active now agrees that the Obama-Clinton fight was *much* nastier. For the most part, criticisms against Bernie have some basis in reality. It's not a smear to point out that his tax plan makes no sense, or that his healthcare plan didn't even work in his own home state. It's also not a smear to point out that his delegates, by and large, come from caucuses with absolutely pathetic turnout and come from a fundamentally undemocratic process.

I'm well aware that the DNC can't do much about their unpaid supporters being dickbags. I've seen hostility on both sides, and think that in battleground states it's ultimately better to smother one's conscience with a pillow and vote for someone who will increase military conflict in the Middle East but at least not roll back every minority right possible back home while simultaneously pissing off every country on Earth.

I notice you live in Utah, so nobody cares about your vote, but you should feel free to smother away anyway. Your strawman of Clinton's positions, however, on't hold up. For a dude who claims to listen to Black Women because they're oppressed, you don't seem to care too much about what would likely happen to them under a Trump presidency.

I want to know what way Bernie could have tried running for POTUS without being "bad" for doing it. He was a Democrat in all but name for years. He caucused with them. He voted in line with them on procedural matters. 93% of the votes between Bernie and Hillary were the same while they were serving in the Senate together. Once all of this is said and done, he'll remain a member of the Democratic party.

Dude, he had his shot. He ran for president, had a hell of a campaign, and he lost. I don't have a problem with him running; I have a problem with him going around and suggesting that Hillary Clinton didn't win the primary legit. Now that he's not doing that anymore, I don't need to care so much.

It is not mathematically impossible (though it is extremely improbable) for him to pull ahead or damn near tie in pledged delegate count. And as far as "He has no chance, he should drop out" goes... Remember 2008? When Hillary said she was going to stay in it to the end and invoked Ted Kennedy's assassination? Bernie has been a fucking saint compared to that.

I've come to the conclusion that most people dislike the Republican spread, mass media adopted caricature of Hillary Clinton as opposed to the actual politician Hillary Clinton who is barely a cunthair to the right of Obama on foreign policy, which is bad, but not Donny Douchebag batshit nukey nukey crazy. I think people suggesting she would start a war with Iran may actually have brains of Terry Schiavo (kinda alive-o) consistency.

Republican narrative on Hillary ignores her aggressive foreign policy.

It's hard to justify voting for someone whose track record on military matters suggests she'll start a new war of aggression. I cannot predict who she'll pick a fight with, though Iran seems unlikely. I wouldn't consider it impossible that she would decide that the current agreement is insufficient and cause a breakdown in that, putting us back where we were. She's a hell of a lot better than Trump on everything, so if it looks like my vote could realistically make a difference come November I'll vote for her just to keep Satan's festering sphincter out of the Oval Office.

The biggest problem with Trump, in my opinion, is that we simply do not know what he actually believes, if he believes anything. It's readily apparent that he doesn't give a fuck how his words affect others. That alone means he's unfit to hold office of any level.

Given how low the support for each candidate is outside party lines, I fully expect a low turn-out year. Which may or may not help Democrats get more seats. I sure as shit hope enough Utah Republicans stay home because they find Trump so repugnant that they simply cannot justify voting for him, giving Utah the opportunity to get some Democrats into office at the national level. Then again, Republicans hate Hillary so much they might come out and vote for Trump anyway.

[FaxModem1]

NPR

Skip to main content
POLITICS

At Least $1.9 Million In Donations Trump Collected For Vets Was Sent Last Week

May 31, 20162:29 PM ET
Barbara Sprunt 2016 square
BARBARA SPRUNT
Arnie Seipel - 2016 - square
ARNIE SEIPEL
Don Gonyea 2010
DON GONYEA
Twitter
Donald Trump reads a list of donations he says were made to veterans groups following a fundraiser he held in Iowa back in January.
Donald Trump reads a list of donations he says were made to veterans groups following a fundraiser he held in Iowa back in January.
Richard Drew/AP
This post was updated at 5:30 p.m. EDT.

At least $1.9 million of the donations to veterans groups that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reported on Tuesday came in last week, after Trump began responding to intense media scrutiny of his earlier claims about raising in excess of $6 million for veterans. Trump said on Tuesday that his efforts raised a total of $5.6 million.

NPR reached out to all 41 of the groups Trump listed as receiving donations. Of those, 31 responded. One group, the Navy SEAL Foundation, said it does not disclose details of its donations. The other 30 confirmed the amounts Trump reported Tuesday, accounting for $4.27 million of the $5.6 million total.

The donations came in from a combination of sources, including the Donald J. Trump Foundation, various groups and individuals who cited Trump's efforts along with their donations, and Trump himself.

The candidate gave a $1 million check to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation on May 24, as questions from the Washington Post and other news outlets about Trump's prior claims regarding these donations accelerated.

Prior to Tuesday, only about $4 million of the fund had been accounted for as paid to veterans charities and service organizations through reporting by various news organizations, chiefly the Post.


Trump engaged in a social media battle over the issue with that publication, saying he is being attacked for trying do to something for veterans, always adding that raising millions of dollars was something he didn't have to do. "I have never received such bad publicity for doing such a good job," Trump complained.

Tuesday, in his most combative news conference yet, in a campaign where he has set a new standard for a contentious relationship with the news media, Trump finally addressed the matter before reporters.

Speaking at his namesake Trump Tower in New York City, he continued to attack journalists for even asking questions about where the money went.

Trump grudgingly released the list of organizations that he says got the money. He predicted the $5.6 million total that he cited will continue to grow, to eventually top the $6 million figure he claimed back at the event where he first solicited donations to veterans, in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 28.

A list of veterans groups Donald Trump says received donations due to his fundraising efforts.
A list of veterans groups Donald Trump says received donations due to his fundraising efforts.
Donald J. Trump For President Inc.
Here's the full list.

But Trump continued to attack the press for asking for accountability about the money.

He called reporters "extremely dishonest," "sleazy," "biased," "nasty," "not good people" and more.

He added, "The press should be ashamed of themselves. On behalf of the vets they should be ashamed of themselves."

Trump also asserted that all of the money had gone to the groups, and that "zero dollars" went to administrative costs.

Finally, he offered reasons for the delay in releasing the list of recipients. Trump said organizations needed to be vetted to ensure their legitimacy and their nonprofit status. "We needed to vet the vets." Plus, he insisted that he wanted to do all of this privately, that he "didn't want credit." One reporter asked, if Trump didn't want credit, then why repeatedly remind people at events and on television that he'd raised $6 million for veterans? Isn't that "taking credit" the reporter added? Trump responded, "It's not."

One shouted question was, "Don't you believe you should be accountable?" Trump responded, "I'm totally accountable. But I didn't want credit for it."

At another point Trump said simply, "I don't think it's anybody's business if I want to send money to the vets."

He was asked why he resents the mere act of verifying the contributions. Trump said, "Because I wanted to make this out of the goodness of my heart. I didn't want to do this where the press was involved."

And, from a Fox News journalist, "Is asking a question an attack?"

Trump shot back, "From the political press it is, I see the stories they write."

It went on like this for 40 minutes. Reporters probing and pushing for information. Trump making no attempt to hide his contempt for them. One questioner wondered if this is what it would be like when a President Trump meets with the White House Press Corps.

The candidate shot back, "Yes, it is."

[Flagg]

Her actions as Secretary of State have been pretty objectively harmful overseas. Should I just ignore what's happened to people outside the US because of her hawkwish policies? The DNC doesn't give a damn what people who aren't registered as Democrats think, so I guess as an American I shouldn't give a damn about non-Americans.

A political party that caters more to people inside the party than outside? I'm shocked! Also, yes, I feel like this is the correct conclusion to draw.

Question: Can the Democrats win the presidency without votes coming from those not registered as Democrats? Why should someone vote for a group that refuses to pretend to think about representing them? This is the same fucking thing Mittens cheesed Democrats off with when he made his 47% comment! "They'll never vote for me, so fuck 'em!"

My take on Hillary is that she won't burn everything down for a laugh, unlike the Donald. However, I completely expect a sparkly new war to started within a year of her inauguration. Probably using some euphemism to pretend it isn't a war. I don't want that. I don't want the economy to be built up on a bubble like it was during Bill's tenure. We can all remember the Dot Com bust at the end of Bill's time as POTUS. The housing bubble was growing under his watch. There are many things to a Hillary presidency I think will be actively harmful. Personally, I don't like the risk I see of her putting forward a SCOTUS nominee that is weak on abortion or LGBT rights in the name of "political expedience." She's outright stated she accepts restrictions on late-term abortions. Her position on LGBT rights reflects what public opinion polls say is most prevalent. How am I to trust she'll remain an ally to all of my LGBT friends if her positions always shift at the same time as public opinion?

1. The President has really very little control over whether a bubble is getting bigger, especially when the opposition controls Congress and nobody has much of an appetite for regulating tech stocks in the first place. But you seem to miss the fact that the thing that made Bill Clinton so popular when he left office was that the economy was doing *really really well*. That's why my folks stayed Democrats, despite literally everyone else in our family voting Republican.
2. Do you seriously think Hillary Clinton, the first female President of the United States, is going to put someone on the Supreme Court with a weak-kneed position on abortion?
3. Do you seriously think that Hillary Clinton is going to roll back LGBTQ protections? The woman who gave the "Gay rights are human rights" speech in Geneva and consistently supported LGBTQ protections as SoS, Senator, and First Lady? On what basis do you make this claim. Do you have some reason to think that LGBTQ rights are going to become less popular among Democrats than they are right now?

1. The housing bubble is something that happened because of increasing deregulation of lending practices. At one time, you needed a 20% downpayment to qualify for a home loan by law. This began to change under Reagan, triggering the Savings and Loan crisis. Bill made zero efforts to reverse this trend. I can lay at least some of it at his feet.
2. Given her stated position on late-term abortions? Given that she proudly admits to being a moderate? I can see her making a concession on a great many things just for the sake of getting someone in there who's tougher on, say, guns. I'll give her this: She's been very consistent on gun control and I admire that. We need it badly.
3. She wasn't "for" gay marriage until it was popular. Her positions have shifted with the winds. Her political career has been focused on what would win her votes and support. Bernie has been consistent in his beliefs that gays are people too. He has held views of equality before they were popular because they were the right thing. Excuse me if I don't believe Hillary to be entirely sincere when her opinions on social matters seem to reflect what 51% of Americans believe.

I don't think Hillary is evil. I think she's very intelligent, driven, and utterly self-interested. Like the majority of POTUS candidates. I was really hoping at an opportunity to have something else. But it's obviously not going to happen, unless Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Which I do not consider to be likely at all.

Again, Hillary's a self-interested, intelligent, and driven candidate? Who the hell do you think has the gumption to run for President? More than one political observer has remarked that running for President is prima face evidence that you have an underlying personality disorder.

Seeking positions of power generally indicates someone who wants power for the sake of power, yes. But it's not 100% of the time the case. Unless Bernie has been playing the mother of long games, it's pretty clear that he wants to do good. His entire purpose in running was to bring attention to issues, and at this point among those issues he feels needs to be addressed is the way primaries are handled. He's damn passionate, and passion can make fools of us all.

Maybe it's hyperbolic to say that the loudest Bernie-opposers think he's evil. But there's an enormous amount of vitriol flying at him. He's not gonna run 3rd party. He's said he'll endorse Hillary Clinton if (when) she clinches the nomination. This is the best case scenario for the DNC, so long as they don't poison all good-will with his supporters. He'll be out of the running, the only votes that he pulls away from Hillary being those from people who decide to write him in regardless of him throwing his support behind Hillary.

Hold on there dingus. It's not like the DNC is the one going around whining about "real delegates." It's not Hillary Clinton pissing and moaning about how the system is rigged. It's not Hillary Clinton suggesting to gullible supporters that a loss is indicative of theft, not merely, y'know, losing.

FWIW, the "vitriol" directed Bernie's way is really quite mild compared to how Presidential campaigns normally go. Virtually every reporter who was active back in 2007-8 and remains active now agrees that the Obama-Clinton fight was *much* nastier. For the most part, criticisms against Bernie have some basis in reality. It's not a smear to point out that his tax plan makes no sense, or that his healthcare plan didn't even work in his own home state. It's also not a smear to point out that his delegates, by and large, come from caucuses with absolutely pathetic turnout and come from a fundamentally undemocratic process.

I'm well aware that the DNC can't do much about their unpaid supporters being dickbags. I've seen hostility on both sides, and think that in battleground states it's ultimately better to smother one's conscience with a pillow and vote for someone who will increase military conflict in the Middle East but at least not roll back every minority right possible back home while simultaneously pissing off every country on Earth.

I notice you live in Utah, so nobody cares about your vote, but you should feel free to smother away anyway. Your strawman of Clinton's positions, however, on't hold up. For a dude who claims to listen to Black Women because they're oppressed, you don't seem to care too much about what would likely happen to them under a Trump presidency.

I want to know what way Bernie could have tried running for POTUS without being "bad" for doing it. He was a Democrat in all but name for years. He caucused with them. He voted in line with them on procedural matters. 93% of the votes between Bernie and Hillary were the same while they were serving in the Senate together. Once all of this is said and done, he'll remain a member of the Democratic party.

Dude, he had his shot. He ran for president, had a hell of a campaign, and he lost. I don't have a problem with him running; I have a problem with him going around and suggesting that Hillary Clinton didn't win the primary legit. Now that he's not doing that anymore, I don't need to care so much.

It is not mathematically impossible (though it is extremely improbable) for him to pull ahead or damn near tie in pledged delegate count. And as far as "He has no chance, he should drop out" goes... Remember 2008? When Hillary said she was going to stay in it to the end and invoked Ted Kennedy's assassination? Bernie has been a fucking saint compared to that.

I've come to the conclusion that most people dislike the Republican spread, mass media adopted caricature of Hillary Clinton as opposed to the actual politician Hillary Clinton who is barely a cunthair to the right of Obama on foreign policy, which is bad, but not Donny Douchebag batshit nukey nukey crazy. I think people suggesting she would start a war with Iran may actually have brains of Terry Schiavo (kinda alive-o) consistency.

Republican narrative on Hillary ignores her aggressive foreign policy.

It's hard to justify voting for someone whose track record on military matters suggests she'll start a new war of aggression. I cannot predict who she'll pick a fight with, though Iran seems unlikely. I wouldn't consider it impossible that she would decide that the current agreement is insufficient and cause a breakdown in that, putting us back where we were. She's a hell of a lot better than Trump on everything, so if it looks like my vote could realistically make a difference come November I'll vote for her just to keep Satan's festering sphincter out of the Oval Office.

The biggest problem with Trump, in my opinion, is that we simply do not know what he actually believes, if he believes anything. It's readily apparent that he doesn't give a fuck how his words affect others. That alone means he's unfit to hold office of any level.

Given how low the support for each candidate is outside party lines, I fully expect a low turn-out year. Which may or may not help Democrats get more seats. I sure as shit hope enough Utah Republicans stay home because they find Trump so repugnant that they simply cannot justify voting for him, giving Utah the opportunity to get some Democrats into office at the national level. Then again, Republicans hate Hillary so much they might come out and vote for Trump anyway.

We know Trump is a racist troglodyte. And we know that due to our admittedly fucked up system, that a vote not cast for Clinton is essentially a vote for Trump. And why should Democrats in a Democratic primary welcome with open arms a candidate whose pretty much only been a member of the party since he started campaigning when we have a candidate who has been a steadfast Democrat for decades and is well qualified, to boot? If Independants want to have a say in a party primary, join the fucking party.

And please present evidence that Clinton would start another war. You keep saying this, but present no evidence!

[Napoleon the Clown]

Her time as Secretary of State was extremely hawkish. If we haven't engaged in a brand new military conflict within a year of her inauguration I'll buy you dinner. She's not exactly been a peacenik.

[Knife]

We know Trump is a racist troglodyte. And we know that due to our admittedly fucked up system, that a vote not cast for Clinton is essentially a vote for Trump. And why should Democrats in a Democratic primary welcome with open arms a candidate whose pretty much only been a member of the party since he started campaigning when we have a candidate who has been a steadfast Democrat for decades and is well qualified, to boot? If Independants want to have a say in a party primary, join the fucking party.

LOL.

A vote not cast for Clinton is a vote for Trump but why should the Democratic party care about outsiders. Do you even hear yourself?

If the Dems want independents, give us a reason besides 'if you don't we all die horribly' and 'fuck you'.

[Flagg]

We know Trump is a racist troglodyte. And we know that due to our admittedly fucked up system, that a vote not cast for Clinton is essentially a vote for Trump. And why should Democrats in a Democratic primary welcome with open arms a candidate whose pretty much only been a member of the party since he started campaigning when we have a candidate who has been a steadfast Democrat for decades and is well qualified, to boot? If Independants want to have a say in a party primary, join the fucking party.

LOL.

A vote not cast for Clinton is a vote for Trump but why should the Democratic party care about outsiders. Do you even hear yourself?

If the Dems want independents, give us a reason besides 'if you don't we all die horribly' and 'fuck you'.

They do care about outsiders, they campaign for their votes after the Democratic Party primary. I get that this is a bit complex for you, since there are 2 distinct phases of a Presidential campaign, and 2 is more than 1, which admittedly confuses idiots. And do you actually deny that not voting or voting for a Naderesque nonentity is essentially a Trump gain?

[Flagg]

Her time as Secretary of State was extremely hawkish. If we haven't engaged in a brand new military conflict within a year of her inauguration I'll buy you dinner. She's not exactly been a peacenik.

No, but I don't see her screaming for a war in Iran. Or anywhere else. Your entire line of reasoning is "when she carried out Obama's foriegn policy she was hawkish". Has it occurred to you that she was that way because the current POTUS wanted her that way?

[Terralthra]

She also voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Flagg]

She also voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So did most other Democrats.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Her time as Secretary of State was extremely hawkish. If we haven't engaged in a brand new military conflict within a year of her inauguration I'll buy you dinner. She's not exactly been a peacenik.

No, but I don't see her screaming for a war in Iran. Or anywhere else. Your entire line of reasoning is "when she carried out Obama's foriegn policy she was hawkish". Has it occurred to you that she was that way because the current POTUS wanted her that way?

She proposed the most hawkish options available.

It's not bad to admit negative aspects to the candidate you're inevitably going to vote for. If everyone turns a blind eye on the shortcomings of a candidate they'll figure out that they can do whatever they damn well please. One lone person's not gonna make that difference, but enough lone people will be like enough lone raindrops. Eventually, you'll have a flood that puts pressure to damn well do something.

I explicitly stated that I don't see her going to war with Iran. Honestly, there's nothing to be gained by it. She knows this. She's not arbitrary in her decisions, unlike Il Douche. (love that name, by the way)

[Terralthra]

She also voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So did most other Democrats.

So? You asked for evidence that she was generally hawkish (favoring military action). That other Democrats (not, worth noting, my representative) were similarly hawkish at the time doesn't make that evidence less meaningful, especially when her primary opponent opposed the AUMF in Iraq, and against extending action in Afghanistan.

[The Romulan Republic]

She also voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look, I loath Clinton, and I'll gleefully hold Iraq against her, but let's be honest- is their anyone in her position who wouldn't have supported military action in Afghanistan?

Anti-war people tend to lump Afghanistan in with Iraq, I've noticed, but they really shouldn't. Afghanistan was in response to an actual attack on American territory, one sufficient to invoke NATO's Article 5 as I recall. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can argue that a military response was unjustified unless a) you are an advocate of absolute pacifism or b) you are a 911 truther.

[Patroklos]

She also voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So did most other Democrats.

So? You asked for evidence that she was generally hawkish (favoring military action). That other Democrats (not, worth noting, my representative) were similarly hawkish at the time doesn't make that evidence less meaningful, especially when her primary opponent opposed the AUMF in Iraq, and against extending action in Afghanistan.

Its clear you don't understand what the term hawkish means. It does not mean opposed to war under any circumstances. It means advocating war for the solution of problems that do not warrant it. Only an idiot would consider support for Afghanistan a hawkish position. Fuck, is Chamberlain a hawk to you? I mean, Poland wasn't a territory of Britain at the time. What a warmonger!