assumption of innocence

That's of course right. But I wanted to point out that there is a huge, huge difference between "not pressing charges", and "cleared". The former means, well, pretty much nothing, except there's no charges for the time being. The latter means "double jeopardy" applies.

Well, no, that's even more wrong. "Double jeopardy" applies post-trial, in which case I'd have said "acquitted." That is indeed something different from not being charged, which is why I didn't say it -- although if you thought that "cleared" meant "acquitted" I can understand your confusion.

You can't be acquitted unless there's charges as well. You can be investigated as many times as the FBI wants for the same thing.

But if he loses the election, could it be in his own financial interest?

Definately. If Trump loses the election he's in a perfect position to make a "Trump TV" news network. "The media was rigged folks, I told you! Mine isn't rigged, we'll give you the best news, the greatest news".

This happens all the time. People throw accusations at well known people. That doesn't mean theyr'e true or false, it means we shouldn't rush to judgement on whether someone's innocent or guilty.

But as the anti-Hillary "people" like to say 'there is no smoke without fire'... I guess this doesn't apply when it's their own candidate eh?

I notice you are all 'subvert democracy!' when it comes to Hillary, but are strangely silent when it comes to issues like all-but advocating attempting to assassinate Hillary, or perform an armed uprising if the vote doesn't go Trumps way? How about not accepting the result unless he wins? What about asking people to basically intimidate people in to not voting? What about recent emails where the Trump campaign was trying to find a way to get people who would vote Hillary not to vote? (linked in with the last point).

WikiLeaks has, unfortunately, recently got a massive hard-on for anti-Hillary pieces, indeed I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored anti-Trump stuff in favour of it (but that is just subjective wondering on my part); indeed the man behind it is said to be pretty much locked on to her as some kind of 'mortal enemy' and thus might not be looking as close as possible as the source of the data - see the wonderful images where a Russian state news site happens to break the WikiLeaks news before WikiLeaks. (There is also a story floating around attempting to undermine Hillary where the person making comments isn't who the (again Russian state media) publisher claims it to be from.)

So, while the information (or at least some of it; best lies are hidden in with the truth) might well be true, you appear to have a foreign power directly trying to manipulate the outcome of the US election and favouring Trump, thus my (deleted) comment about Russia thanking you - you are basically playing in to their game.
(Although to be fair, even the number of Elections and governments the USA has undermined I guess turn about is fair play...)

And then finally... ah.. the FBI... who's recent non-news event started this thread and whom it is believed have credible information linking Trump with Russia but have not come out with it despite being asked for months to do so.

I'm sure you'll brush all this off with the normal ease the Trump apologists do, that won't surprise me... if you are willing to excuse sexual assault, well nothing else really matters does it... (well, unless Hillary might have done it, then pitch forks!)

(btw, you'll be glad to hear I'm done replying - I don't want to waste the brain time on this any more and I don't debate with... I'll stop there before I give a moderator an excuse to delete this post...)

But as the anti-Hillary "people" like to say 'there is no smoke without fire'... I guess this doesn't apply when it's their own candidate eh?

There's a huge difference in that Hillary's leaks have proven corruption, and the DNC/CNN have fired people over it as an admission of guilt.

but are strangely silent when it comes to issues like all-but advocating attempting to assassinate Hillary, or perform an armed uprising if the vote doesn't go Trumps way? How about not accepting the result unless he wins?

Source on the first one. Not accepting the result means a recount/investigation. An integral part of democracy...

What about asking people to basically intimidate people in to not voting? What about recent emails where the Trump campaign was trying to find a way to get people who would vote Hillary not to vote? (linked in with the last point).

Source on the first one. For the second point... Yeah, that's what campaigns do. They try and mud-sling the other candidate to drive down voter enthusiasm while also trying to hype up their own candidate... Is campaigning illegal now? Hillary bribed debate moderators to leak questions... Come on man, you can't seriously compare "how do we make Hillary's voters not vote for her anymore" to "Send me the debate questions ahead of time please"

WikiLeaks has, unfortunately, recently got a massive hard-on for anti-Hillary pieces, indeed I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored anti-Trump stuff in favour of it (but that is just subjective wondering on my part); indeed the man behind it is said to be pretty much locked on to her as some kind of 'mortal enemy' and thus might not be looking as close as possible as the source of the data - see the wonderful images where a Russian state news site happens to break the WikiLeaks news before WikiLeaks. (There is also a story floating around attempting to undermine Hillary where the person making comments isn't who the (again Russian state media) publisher claims it to be from.)

Those Russian hackers are pretty good, huh? They hacked the NSA to restore Hillary's emails then uploaded them to Weiner's laptop/framed him for it.

It's not even that far fetched though, really. Hillary talks about setting up a no fly zone in Russia's ally (Syria) so if I was Putin I'd probably try to help Trump any way I could. How's that a bad thing? Am I calling a conspiracy on the UK for their politicians endorsing Hillary?

If Russia actually DID hack the dnc and prove corruption, I'd thank them for it. If they hacked the RNC and proved corruption I'd thank them for that as well.

In general I'm extremely pro whistleblower.

And then finally... ah.. the FBI... who's recent non-news event started this thread and whom it is believed have credible information linking Trump with Russia but have not come out with it despite being asked for months to do so.

Proof?

I'm sure you'll brush all this off with the normal ease the Trump apologists do, that won't surprise me... if you are willing to excuse sexual assault, well nothing else really matters does it... (well, unless Hillary might have done it, then pitch forks!)

It's a comparison. Trump has been accused of (not convicted) sexual assault, and says mean things. Hillary has been exposed as corrupt.

I'd rather have someone who says mean things unless and is accused of something.

Trump certainly wasn't my first choice (Rand Paul was), he wasn't my last choice (Jeb was), but he's above hillary.

I hate how during election season everyone pretends like the person they support is absolutely flawless... Even when it's not the person they were supporting at the beginning. Both candidates have flaws. Trump hurts feelings, Hillary sows corruption.

(btw, you'll be glad to hear I'm done replying

I grew up in a political family (elected officials. Even considering/getting pushed by my family to try a congress or state legislature run in 2020), and love political discourse/debate. Even when I don't agree with someone's view point I find it interesting. This election especially, as it comes down to 2 groups of people, 1 finding the emotional argument that Trump's said abhorrent things to be the most important factor, and another that's determined (now)provent corruption to be the most important factor.

Come election day the gut tells me that the latter should succeed, but who knows. Usually by this point it's obvious who will win.

Here's how each would impact my taxes Donald Trump Donald Trump Republican Income Taxes: You would save $22,100 Capital Gains: No change Sales Taxes: No change Healthcare: No change College Tuition: No change Standard Deductions: No change National Debt: add $11.2 Trillion through 2026 Total tax liability: You will save an additional $22,100 per year See plan details

Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Democratic Income Taxes: No change Capital Gains: No change Sales Taxes: No change Healthcare: No change College Tuition: No change Standard Deductions: No change National Debt: reduce by $498 billion through 2026 Total tax liability: No change See plan details

I'm not sure if you identify as a conservative or a Republican, but I'd think that Trump's $11 trillion addition to the debt would trump (excuse the pun) you saving $22k in taxes. Seeing as you'll be giving that money back and further wrecking the economy in the mid to long run.

A lot of Dems are roasting Comey but honestly, I think he did the right thing saying that there are new emails in the investigation. Yes, that has a negative impact on Clinton, but the shitstorm that would occur if this leaked before the election or even found out after the election (if she won) would be significant. If Obama had obstruction during his terms in office, I don't even know what you would call what the Republicans would do to her.

I'm not sure if you identify as a conservative or a Republican, but I'd think that Trump's $11 trillion addition to the debt would trump (excuse the pun) you saving $22k in taxes. Seeing as you'll be giving that money back and further wrecking the economy in the mid to long run.

I'm liberal in the sense of I think Keynesian economics is correct, and the debt/deficit doesn't matter at it's current rate and that we should continue to increase it for a stable growing GDP. Any reduction on it would just be wasted potential for our economy.

The bigger question is if Trump's going to follow through with protectionist tariffs or not, as that would trigger a huge departure from the USA's normal role in the world's economy. And on that point, I'm more inclined to support them see'ing as how many companies have left in tax inversions recently.

Grown men who use those kind of words and pass it off as "locker room talk" are seriously disturbed individuals.

Really? Different generations maybe. I'm 30, but when my friend said he couldn't go out drinking with me last week I said "What, too busy fucking your dog?" (He has a dog and no girlfriend). It's a joke, something I wouldn't normally say in public, but would with a friend.

Trump was saying "When you're rich you can just walk up and bang any girl, it's great!". Something vulgar to talk about, but it's not a big deal at all.

"What, too busy fucking your dog?" - That isn't clever, funny or offensive - its just a plain dumb thing to say. Maybe your friend didn't want to go for a drink with someone who say's those sorts of things.

Trump wasn't talking to his friend, he was talking to someone he thought might share his point of view. I would go as far as saying that he was feeling him out, maybe he could bag himself a pervy friend? I've always wondered (from a societal pov) how gang rape becomes a thing - how do perverted people meet other perverted people? Don't have you have to ask them first! What if they are not? Its like catch 22.

Disgusting locker room talk may have been considered ok in the 60's (still not as bad as trump) - but it wasn't right and the reason people acted like this was because they had been conditioned by society - there was nothing wrong with them - they were conforming to what they thought was normal. Now we have a chap and even tho society says "this is wrong" and it clearly is, he still decides to go against the flow and say/incite things which are foul, to what end does someone say this shit? Was he bragging? I can't reason what would urge someone to say something so sick. Is he trying to spread his opinion?

As I already stated, cheap quips (which contain comic timing "that was just pillow talk baby!") are 1 thing, most lads do that. This is different (he went on at length, it was like watching The Office : Vulgar edition) and if you can't see that you must keep some pretty bad company.

What would you think if a priest said (and I apologies for describing this, mods - edit post if you want) "when you're a priest, you can get away with touching alter girls, they never say anything!", would that be locker room talk? Its the same ballpark imo.

1 more just to kick home the point, a <insert religion here> man says to his single friend "when you are married you can do whatever you like with your wife, if she leaves you she will be shamed! Win! Win!". How's that 1 size up?

As I already stated, cheap quips (which contain comic timing "that was just pillow talk baby!") are 1 thing, most lads do that. This is different (he went on at length, it was like watching The Office : Vulgar edition) and if you can't see that you must keep some pretty bad company. What would you think if a priest said (and I apologies for describing this, mods - edit post if you want) "when you're a priest, you can get away with touching alter girls, they never say anything!", would that be locker room talk? Its the same ballpark imo. 1 more just to kick home the point, a man says to his single friend "when you are married you can do whatever you like with your wife, if she leaves you she will be shamed! Win! Win!". How's that 1 size up?

I get what you're saying, and it's true that Trump's said some things which would be disqualifying against a respectable candidate with a clean record.... But our system's a 2 party democracy, and the democratic candidate has done awful things instead of just being vulgar.

Just because a priest says that doesn't mean I'd replace him with an Imaam known for child marriages (Stetching the analogy too much?).

I mean, If someone like Jim Webb was the democratic candidate I'd be voting for him... But he's not, instead we have a Clinton who surprise surprise, commited corruption with the DNC during the primaries, then commited corruption during the general election with a rigged presidential debate, getting questions in advance from the moderators... I can't in good conscious bring myself to support that level of corruption. It seems absurd to encourage that kind of behaviour with rewarding it a general election win.

I also don't like the concept of a political dynasty as well. I wouldn't vote for another Bush/Clinton/Kennedy if possible. Democracy isn't supposed to be an oligarchy where the same family keeps running candidates. This is somewhat unfair to the candidates as their prospects are limited at birth, essentially, but the concept of constantly rehashing people from the same family for the POTUS role just seems off to me.

As I already stated, cheap quips (which contain comic timing "that was just pillow talk baby!") are 1 thing, most lads do that. This is different (he went on at length, it was like watching The Office : Vulgar edition) and if you can't see that you must keep some pretty bad company. What would you think if a priest said (and I apologies for describing this, mods - edit post if you want) "when you're a priest, you can get away with touching alter girls, they never say anything!", would that be locker room talk? Its the same ballpark imo. 1 more just to kick home the point, a man says to his single friend "when you are married you can do whatever you like with your wife, if she leaves you she will be shamed! Win! Win!". How's that 1 size up?

I get what you're saying, and it's true that Trump's said some things which would be disqualifying against a respectable candidate with a clean record.... But our system's a 2 party democracy, and the democratic candidate has done awful things instead of just being vulgar.

Just because a priest says that doesn't mean I'd replace him with an Imaam known for child marriages (Stetching the analogy too much?).

I mean, If someone like Jim Webb was the democratic candidate I'd be voting for him... But he's not, instead we have a Clinton who surprise surprise, commited corruption with the DNC during the primaries, then commited corruption during the general election with a rigged presidential debate, getting questions in advance from the moderators... I can't in good conscious bring myself to support that level of corruption. It seems absurd to encourage that kind of behaviour with rewarding it a general election win.

I also don't like the concept of a political dynasty as well. I wouldn't vote for another Bush/Clinton/Kennedy if possible. Democracy isn't supposed to be an oligarchy where the same family keeps running candidates. This is somewhat unfair to the candidates as their prospects are limited at birth, essentially, but the concept of constantly rehashing people from the same family for the POTUS role just seems off to me.

I suppose if you're playing the long long game and you're prepared to suffer an insufferable git being in charge for a while to get a goal then I can see why you would vote for him but it's not something I would do.

But he's not, instead we have a Clinton who surprise surprise, commited corruption with the DNC during the primaries, then commited corruption during the general election with a rigged presidential debate, getting questions in advance from the moderators...

Source?