Trump, Clinton Both Refuse To Explain Why They Share Same Address In Delaware

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share something pertinent in common.
By @Subversive_Pen |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+
    Donald Trump and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at Trump's wedding.

    Donald Trump and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at Trump’s wedding.

    Wilmington, DE As it turns out, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share something pertinent in common, after all — a tax haven cozily nested inside the United States.

    This brick-and-mortar, nondescript two-story building in Wilmington, Delaware would be awfully crowded if its registered occupants — 285,000 companies — actually resided there.

    What’s come to be known as the “Delaware loophole” — the unassuming building at 1209 North Orange Street — has become, as the Guardian described, “famous for helping tens of thousands of companies avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in tax.” 

    Reportedly dozens of Fortune 500 companies — Coca-Cola, Walmart, American Airlines, and Apple, to name a few — use Delaware’s strict corporate secrecy laws and legal tax loopholes by registering the North Orange Street address for official business.

    “Big corporations, small-time businesses, rogues, scoundrels, and worse — all have turned up at the Delaware address in hopes of minimizing taxes, skirting regulations, plying friendly courts or, when needed, covering their tracks,” theNew York Times’ Leslie Wayne described in 2012. “It’s easy to set up shell companies here, no questions asked.”

    While the legitimacy of taxes as a concept may be up to personal interpretation, what matters in Clinton’s use of the so-called Delaware loophole, in particular, is her constant harping on the need for corporations and elite individuals to pay their fair share.

    In other words, Clinton’s employment of North Orange Street amounts to a telling, Do As I Say, Not As I Do. And, as the Guardian notes, both of “the leading candidates for president – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – have companies registered at 1209 North Orange, and have refused to explain why.”

    As Rupert Neate explained for the Guardian, being registered in the tiny state allows “companies to legally shift earnings from other states to Delaware, where they are not taxed on non-physical incomes generated outside of state.”

    In fact, some have claimed — all revelations of Panamanian documents aside — the use of tax-friendly locations inside the U.S. makes it the biggest tax haven in the world, with Delaware, alone, costing other states some $9 billion in lost taxes over the past decade.

    Clinton has repeatedly touted the needs for tax transparency and to shut down foreign havens with similar loopholes.

    “Some of you may have just heard about these disclosures about outrageous tax havens and loopholes and superrich people across the world are exploiting in Panama and elsewhere,” Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO annual Constitutional Convention earlier this month. “We are going after all these scams and make sure everyone pays their fair share here in America.”

    Oh, the irony.

    According to Neate, a Clinton spokesman explained,

    “ZFS [Holdings, LLC] was set up when Secretary Clinton left the State Department as an entity to manage her book and speaking income. No federal, state, or local taxes were saved by the Clintons as a result of this structure.”

    Why, if what the spokesman claims to be true, would Clinton bother using an address in Delaware?

    Of the 515 companies Trump officially registered with the Federal Election Commission, “We have 378 entities registered in the state of Delaware,” the billionaire told the Guardian, “meaning I pay you a lot of money, folks. I don’t feel guilty at all, OK?”

    Delaware’s incredibly business-friendly structure that allows for such a crowded address is completely legal, though the ability to create shell corporations lends to shady dealings and is “a magnet … which individuals and corporations can use to evade an inestimable amount in federal and foreign taxes,” as a report by the Institute on Taxation and Foreign Policy has described.

    Still, Clinton’s constant moralizing on tax transparency — and her spokesperson’s claims she hasn’t benefited from the North Orange Street address — proves, yet again, her stances offer little in the way of a solid foundation.


    This article (Trump and Hillary Refuse to Explain Why They Both Share the Same Address in Delaware) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org.

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, National and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Delusionalmyass

      Thank you for this article. This is the kind of thing we need to be informed of now-before a new president takes over. Clearly, we have learned through the last two presidential administrations, both in Bush’s as well as Obama’s, that our government is in desperate need of reform. Our two party system, which , by the way, is not official in the US, makes it easy for the globalists to “divide and conquer”. They are the ones pushing for the mighty struggle between the two parties, for their own benefit. If you doubt this, look at last night. What was supposed to happen, according to nearly all news reports?? Riots, civil war, etc. etc etc right? I even heard that some insurance companies were offering special insurance for small businesses who may be destroyed, burned out or looted. Did that happen? I suspect that without our president or Hillary initiating such a response immediately (like last night), it simply did not happen. Would it have happened if Hillary won? Perhaps, although I do not think so. Evidence suggests that Hillary has been behind the illegal activities which have taken place through the campaign, not the American citizens who are democrats. Her campaign managers employed the homeless to attack Trump supporters at Trump rallies. Her campaign managers instructed volunteers to register the dead as democrats, fill out and submit illegal ballots, tear down Trump signs and engage in other activities they would never even contemplate on their own. Obama went out and told illegal immigrants to vote, ensuring them they would not be deported, actually, making them believe that if they voted, they would be citizens. Now we will have to contend with that.
      No, the problem is not American citizens. We are just here to fund the government. Do we want to fund a corrupt government, no matter if it’s Republican or Democrat? Because make no mistake’ that is not the issue. The elected officials who are in the back pocket of the globalists-whether Democrat or Republican, those are the corrupt officials who will soon bring down America, and the majority of her citizens, both Democrat and Republican as well as all others, if we don’t get that and act on it soon.
      This article shows loopholes, used by the very rich and unknown to most of the rest of us, which exist in within our own country. Maybe they have been allowed because many government officials in Congress, DOJ, and other departments use them too. I gotta admit that if I had money to invest, I would be checking into Delaware myself. How many others reading this article, and be honest, thought the same?
      This is good reporting. We need to know about this to eliminate it. We need to hold our government accountable if they are taking tax credits that we are not allowed. We need to confront Hillary, Trump and any other government officials (think about that: those who govern us, despite party affiliation) who engage in this corruption , in order to stop it. And if it turns out not to be illegal, well then, we can also enjoy the tax savings too. We have funded their salaries, they are supposed to protect our interests, not their own or those of the globalists. Trump says he is here for US, the citizens, and for the movement to save America. I have my suspicions, after doing research on my own, that he may have ties to the globalists. But I do not know that for certain. I am sure Hillary does. So, for now, Trump was the better choice. But keep reporting any facts that show he will not represent the people. And most crucial, American citizens must not divide-not even to allow immigration into the United States. We must grow stronger, we are near death as a country now, and until we can grow stronger, we can be of no lasting help or use to others.
      Get it straight. Do you call Haitans, or Cubans, or other very dark skinned people not from African descent Blacks? No. The same goes for Whites. Not all whites are of European descent. Italians, Polish, Spanards, are all white skinned. They did not have slaves, rip off the Indians or do any of the other things they are commonly accused of. They simply came here, running from Engish monarch rule, for a better life. Get over it! The entitlement has to stop if we are to grow! Each person must contribute. Period.

    • Pingback: Rigging the Rigged U.S. Elections… and A Counter- Coup? | Tales from the Conspiratum()

    • Pingback: Cthulu 2016 – Kim Rhea()

    • Brown Town

      it’s called “The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy” , , not foreign policy lol.

    • rokidtoo

      What a B.S., clickbait article. I realize I clicked. However, I wanted to verify that the author would sink so low. Ms. Bernish should be ashamed of herself.

    • Pingback: The Choice That Never Was | myfollowerblog()

    • Sara Starkey

      It is probably the address of a Registered Agent corporation. Not unusual, and certainly not illegal.

      • Viper Driver

        You are exactly correct. It is the common Registered Agent address for all out of state entities that want to incorporate in a particular state they do not reside in. Another example of the media lying about a subject.

      • Marion Emory

        Certainly. It is not “unusual” or “illegal” just shady, unethical, and yet another way Hillary is so far removed from the common people, just like Donald Trump.

      • Trinity4

        Wasn’t Hillary recently denouncing people found to have accounts in Panama as tax evaders and greedy criminals
        And when she is POTUS she’ll make sure this tax heavens will be declared illegal. Hhmmmmm.

    • real Macaroni

      It’s not illegal or unethical, it’s called a registered agent. CT Corp is at this address, they are a major registered agent service. Corporations are legally required to have an in-state registered agent in every state where they do business (in this case Delaware). This is to enable residents of the state to serve a lawsuit on them within the physical jurisdiction of the state’s courts. These corporations are still taxed by every state and country in which they do business. Ms. Bernish obviously does not know the first thing about law or business, and should not be writing about these topics.

      • Marion Emory

        The Clintons’ infinite number of shady, ethically questionable behaviors is precisely the reason many people see Hillary and Trump as two sides of the same coin. As a lifelong Democrat, I respectfully decline to join you and the apologists in such an eager dismissal of progressive values, as you usher in the same fate (for Democrats) that G. W. Bush bestowed upon Republicans. #BernieOrBust because ‘winning’ with corruption is not winning at all.

        • MegLOL

          Protest voting gets you Brexits. Be wise, man.

          • Marion Emory

            The EU is a centralization of power that is out of touch with the people, and is intended to operate as leverage over the U.S. and other global economic players. If we weren’t so busy allowing politicians like Hillary Clinton to advocate for tethering our economy to foreign whims, this would be in the interest of the U.S. Right now, our problem is that our stock market investments are so deeply tied to the UK because that is our pathway into the EU, which is a competitor with the U.S., not your friend. People are going to feel this in their 401Ks because like Bernie Sanders says, the banks are too big and too tied together. You know who hates BREXIT? J.P. Morgan, that’s who. Have fun choosing party identity and Hillary Clinton to betray the principles, you probably supported Obama along side me.

            • MegLOL

              You do remember this was what Hillary and Bernie agreed on in the debates, right? Have you read both candidates platforms? They are nearly identical!

              • Marion Emory

                They are nowhere near “identical,” and I remember the debates quite clearly.

                Hillary’s big plan is to change virtually nothing, and stick exclusively with Dodd-Frank, which doesn’t have the teeth necessary to break up the banks. Furthermore, Hillary all but opposed Sanders calls for such decentralization until she realized it would be politically convenient. Over the course of the Primary, Hillary has adapted most of her platform to more closely resemble Sanders, but you’re left with one very major problem: Hillary cannot be trusted. Hillary will say absolutely ANYTHING to get more votes, and in the same breath, she never hesitates to betray progressive interests to appease corporate lobbyists.

                Hillary, nor ANY Clinton can be trusted to reign in the financial sector, and the depth of your gullibility in thinking otherwise is almost an argument to vote for Trump, almost.

                • MegLOL

                  Okay, I just read above that you were still attacking Registered Agency, which is a good thing for the American public and for businesses. Successful businesses should be able to legally span across state lines, and patrons in that state should be allowed to sue those businesses. You are just a conspiracy fanatic.

                  And both Clinton and Sanders have long agreed about banks needing to be broken up. He just wanted to rush it; she said we had to stabilize the Fed first into smaller entities, then focus on doing the same to the banks it serves. There is really no use in making the banks smaller when the Fed is still too big to fail itself.

                  Also, I think you are forgetting Bill Clinton’s economic successes. He went from a multi- billion deficit to a multi-billion surplus. Unemployment dropped 3.5% points. And there was a lot more that he said he was going to deliver in his 1992 platform, “It’s the economy,” that he actually did deliver in his years in the White House.

                  Don’t try to rewrite history. If u still think Trump would be able to do even half of that (even with all his Chapter 11s and not paying taxes himself), go ahead and vote for him or don’t vote at all… because then you will see what protest voting gets you.

                  • Marion Emory

                    So we’re referring to the address that Trump and Hillary share in Delaware, as nothing more than a Registered Agency and ignoring its use as a tax haven because there is a facade of ‘positive’ elements? Floods must be a good thing too, because they contain water, and people need water.

                    As for “Bill Clinton’s economic successes,” and as much as I hate to play devil’s advocate for a Bush (so much like the Clintons), but Bill’s “economic successes” were mostly happenstance where he kept GHW Bush’s policies to undo the damage of Reagan’s “voodoo economics.” The rest can really be attributed to the luck of the dotcom bubble, that eventually popped. Seriously, “rewrite history?” That would involve adopting your view that the elimination of financial regulations under the Bill Clinton administration didn’t largely contribute to the housing crisis and great recession. I want Glass-Steagall, but thanks to the Clintons that is currently a fantasy.

                    I would even go as far as to say some of Obama’s greatest accomplishments (as the best President of my lifetime, going back to Carter) were undoing Clinton era policies like DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Among Obama’s greatest failures would be following Hillary’s advice on Libya.

                    As for Donald Trump, I’m planning to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, if she doesn’t make the ballot in my state. What Trump may or may not do, or ‘achieve’ is not my problem; it’s the gullible betrayers of progressives that supported Hillary in the Primary that can accept the blame for nominating a candidate that requires liberals to abandon principles to support. Hillary vs Trump is an indication that the need for a third party or independent rise is long overdue. There is no such thing as a “spoiler” when BOTH the Democratic and Republican nominees are rotten. If Hillary can’t win without progressives betraying their own principles, she doesn’t deserve to win.

                    Nevertheless, you’ll be hard-pressed to convince me that Trump can accomplish anything but disruption to the money streams in Washington. Hence, the reason Republican Party bosses are supporting Hillary because they know it may be the ONLY way to keep the big money flowing into the industrialized war machine.

                    • MegLOL

                      I wrote a long response defending the Clinton administration and Registered Agents, but during it I felt that it was just so sad that we are even fighting. Trump will be President. Everyone is saying that the Republican party is in a tailspin, but the Democrats are pitted against each other just as much. Voting for anyone else doesn’t even count for anything except to split the vote (Nader, anyone?) Everything is just so messed up, and it would still be this messed up even if the couple million more people had voted for Bernie. No one can compromise these days. Whoever get the White House will have people across the aisle and in their own party, who hate their guts. It’s just all so stupid. I still believe that HIllary’s record with working across the aisle is a good one, and I think she is competitive enough with herself to improve on her husband’s good record. I’m going to vote for her.

                      • Marion Emory

                        The Supreme Court, and NOT Ralph Nader, is the reason Al Gore was not given the recount in Florida he deserved. The continued false demonizing of someone trying to make the system better by pushing for a culture receptive to more choices, is what makes you a sensationalist with no credibility. It means you have more in common with Republicans, which is probably why you are comfortable betraying progressive interests by supporting Hillary. It is that kind of lie, and ignorance, that is driving rational people out of the Democratic Party. How can a Clinton supporter smear Nader, when Bill Clinton owes EVERY BIT of his election to Ross Perot?

                        One would have to live in a bubble of fantasy to believe that Bill Clinton has a “good record.” Only compared to 8 years of Reagan and 4 more of his successor do the Clintons barely and ever so slightly rise above the lowest bar. Just as in this year, where Hillary struggles to be seen as the “lesser of two evils” compared to Trump, which is still evil, and precisely what you are envoking when bringing up Nader. A desperate and pathetic appeal to the lowest of a person’s standards. Then, we are taken on a fantastic journey of propaganda, touting Hillary “working across the aisle” as though it is evidence of “good.” This is the final nail in the coffin of your credibilty, when anyone can clearly see that Hillary’s efforts “across the aisle” include lobbying for NAFTA, DOMA, defining marriage between only “a man and a woman,” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and calling black children “superpredators,” not to mention, destroying regulations (Glass-Steagall) that directly contributed to the economic meltdown of 2008. As a Senator, Hillary reached across the aisle to vote for a heinous credit bill that would have helped the financial sector, and hurt virtually every person in debt regardless of their ability to make payments, the very example Elizabeth Warren cited as how Hillary sells her support. Hillary’s reach across party lines as Senator also includes voting for a blank check to endlessly spend on an invasion of Iraq with no addition of actual oversight of the Bush administration. Hillary voted for the Patriot Act, and the Wall Street bailout, and continued to across party lines to be against same-sex marriage. As Sec. of State, Hillary stood in the way of a wage increase to 60 cents for Haitian laborers, reversed gender nuetral language policies in the State Department, supported Honduran coups, betrayed the public’s trust and the FOIA, and helped ISIS by pushing to destabilize Libya and the region.

                        It’s never been a better time to vote for a third party candidate, such as, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. There is no such thing as a “spoiler,” when your Democratic nominee, and the Republican nominee are BOTH putrid and rotten. It is the apologists that will be applauding as the Clintons continue to betray the interests of people on both sides of the “aisle.” Progressives lose in substance, while conservatives lose credit and take the blame. Perhaps you like this arrangement, but it is exactly the reason independents and young voters want to run screaming away from the Clintons. As you so blindly prey on the gullibility of others to force people to feel trapped in a decision between verbal vomit or fecal policies, a wall or a war, corruption or corruption, just remember you are part of the problem.

                      • MegLOL

                        You obviously just want to argue. Let’s agree to disagree. I’m more into finding commonalities. THAT is the progressive way forward. Oh, and btw, I’m 22, so I am one of those “young voters” you spoke of. And I’m voting for her.

                      • Marion Emory

                        During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary lobbied for DOMA (defined marriage “between a man and a woman”), Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, NAFTA, and called black children “superpredators.” Hillary also accessed the private FBI files of political enemies, without authorization (see Filegate, sounds like Nixon).

                        As Senator, Hillary voted for the financial sector to have the legal ability to punish debt holders despite their ability to pay (a vote that Elizabeth Warren exposed Hillary for selling), voted for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, the Wall Street bailout and opposed same-sex marriage.

                        As Secretary of State, Hillary supported Honduran coups, opposed a Haitian labor wage increase to 60 cents, reversed gender neutral language policies, pushed for the destabilization of Libya and the region (helped ISIS), and betrayed the public’s trust by circumventing the FOIA with a private email server.

                      • MegLOL

                        Macros

                        53 carbs

                        Okay, DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were Bill Clinton’s measures. Most historians point to the fact that although they are outdated today, they were a necessary transition into gay marriage rights. We had to define marriage as it was before we could repeal it. I still think Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a necessary stepping stone. It gave protection to a lot of soldiers to not be persecuted by the military in entrance interview questions (which had been making gay people intimidated to join) and more gay people felt comfortable entering the military. When the military had gay people working in it being successful, then it was the time to have them be open about it, so no one could use the argument “gay people aren’t equipped for the military” because gay people had already infiltrated every branch of the military.
                        I still like NAFTA. The governments of the countries involved, including us, have changed, but the initial trade agreement was beneficial to all. And Hilary did not call black children “super predators” that just isn’t true. She said there are superpredators out there, and I agree. Bernie said similar statements, AND voted to pass that bill when it came around.

                        The judge took like forever like 15 years or something to make the decision and really conducted thorough research into the matter, but eventually Hillary was cleared of the Filegate matter. Catch up with the times, please.

                        Also, Clinton said in a speech at the time of the bailout that she had serious reservations about supporting it because the banks would be the big winners, but she weighed it with the auto industry strengths AND with the fact that Obama had asked Democrats to support it, so she voted for it. I agreed with her decisions on the Iraq War and Patriot Act at the time. There is all kinds of evidence that Sanders would have to if it had been done under a Democratic President, seeing as he supported TWO Iraq invasions and regime changes under Clinton, and continues to support Syrian civil war involvement now, which Hillary does too… but she didn’t shrug off a Syrian refugees questions about it saying she was “too tired” like Sanders did.

                        Neither Hilary or the US State Department had any involvement in the Haitian wage increase, since it was a Haiti government matter. Some idiots in the U.S. Embassy there raised objections to it because they thought it would bring instability to the region. They had no clout whatsoever in the Haiti internal government matter. Clinton didn’t like the Honduras coup but recognized that it was legal. I just asked my study partner from Honduras about it. She said they did it, so they could have elections, which they had like 3 weeks later. She said it was “bloodless and necessary and the US has no business stopping us if we want to overthrow our President”, who apparently was found untrustworthy.

                        In the end, I agree that debt holders need to have some fear of repayment, or more and more people will just go into debt, so I supported those measures. Therefore, it’s a good thing that Warren will perhaps be on the ticket too to keep the balance. I’m all about balance and listening to all sides, so I hope Warren does get in.

                        You, however, have just made too many conspiracy theory statements without really researching the CAUSE behind the support for that bill or action… or even if the “savior”, Bernie, supported them too.

                        I’m voting for her.

                      • Marion Emory

                        Bill was President, but Hillary was the one lobbying for the administration. Despite attempts to have it both ways, Hilary cannot claim “experience” and simultaneously escape responsibility for her own words, and her own actions.

                        You defend DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. You’re in the wrong party and it’s sad what the Democrats are becoming. “Superpredators.” NAFTA. You’re too young to know or remember, but progressives have been making serious headway for the last 8 years, and since you’re just now coming into political awareness, you should consider that you’re undermining that progress by being an apologist.

                        Sanders voted AGAINST the Wall Street bailout, NAFTA, DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the creditor bill Hillary sold her vote on, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, while Hillary supported every one of them, and more.

                        I’m voting for the other “her.”

                        Jill Stein 2016!

                      • MegLOL

                        You have to take small steps to not create a counterculture; Hillary is doing it correctly. Such small steps the conservatives won’t even know what hit them. Sanders wouldn’t have been able to get anywhere with them; he is so “my way or no way.”

                        Go ahead and vote for the unknown Jill; I don’t care nearly as much who you vote for as you care who I vote for. The only reason I commented on your post to begin with is you were “Bernie Or Bust”-ing it up, implying you wouldn’t even vote. Everyone should at least vote. If you really feel that Jill needs your vote enough to risk Trump, go ahead… The Democrats will welcome you back any day.

                      • Marion Emory

                        If you were old enough to remember, you would know that a “counterculture” is precisely what happened because of DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the type of bigotry Hillary supported by defining marriage as “between a man and a woman.” Everything the Clintons touch becomes a festering mess and there only consistent ‘accomplishment’ is giving the Republicans what they want, whether it’s another scandal, or using the Democratic leadership to push for conservative policies.

                        Moreover, virtually everything that is true about Trump, is also true about the Clintons. They are all cuts of the same cloth. Nevertheless, everyone has a lot more to fear from the Clintons because they have connections and people willing to take the fall for them, or apologists that defend everything they do, no matter how evil or corrupt it is (look in a mirror). Trump has ZERO government or legislative experience, no Washington cronies or loyalists. I’ll take Trump’s inability to do the wacky things he talks about over, Hillary’s ability to grow the worst parts of both parties. If you really want to keep dissing on Jill Stein, the best you will accomplish is convincing me to vote for Johnson because he has a better chance, or Trump to stop Hillary. It’s people like you that remind me the only way the Democratic Party will be rational again, is if the Clintons are rejected.

                        Furthermore, #BernieOrBust is made up of Democrats (and independents) that will not vote for Hillary, and “bust” means those of us that have been Democrats and are leaving the Democratic Party. Some are writing in Bernie, some are not voting at all, some are voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, and some are even voting for Trump. Is there anything you don’t misrepresent? Oh that’s right, misrepresentation is a requirement when supporting a Clinton.

                      • MegLOL

                        If u think you are supporting a perfect candidate, you need to read up on Jill’s flip-flop and then coverup about her Brexit remarks. I think she was just confused for a bit and then embarrassed about her first national gaffe, so she didn’t want to admit to it. But since no one can make a mistake and try to save face around you, it might really bug you. At the end of the day, everyone is imperfect, but I believe that Hillary is a perfectionist and wants to do the right thing-especially for women and children. I think she beats herself up more over these so-called scandals than anyone else could do for her. She has been in a lot of scary situations, in which none of these other candidates (or you) can relate. So, go ahead and keep delivering your blows to her (and your blows to me), she’s heard worse and so have I. Please, stop being ageist. I haven’t brought your age into this.

                        Also, Trump not have cronies in DC? Are we thinking of the same Trump?

                      • Marion Emory

                        You wrote:

                        “If u think you are supporting a perfect candidate, you need to read
                        up on Jill’s flip-flop and then coverup about her Brexit remarks. I
                        think she was just confused for a bit and then embarrassed about her
                        first national gaffe, so she didn’t want to admit to it. But since no
                        one can make a mistake and try to save face around you, it might really
                        bug you.”

                        —————————

                        First of all, “perfect” is not an option, although Bernie was the closest thing. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s presumption as the nominee has set the bar so low, basically ANYONE is a better alternative. Hillary is the “most disliked Democratic nominee in history,” after all.

                        By the way, the EU was created, in part, to leverage AGAINST the United States’ economic power. The ONLY reason anyone in the U.S. should even care, is because politicians like Hillary and Bill Clinton have helped Republicans tether our financial future (401Ks, for instance) to the stability of foreign alliances AGAINST the U.S. The ONLY reason Democrats find themselves criticizing BREXIT is because it is viewed as helping Trump, and it’s likely to disrupt Hillary’s big Wall Street plans to bury us even deeper.

                        You wrote:

                        “At the end of the day, everyone is imperfect, but I believe
                        that Hillary is a perfectionist and wants to do the right
                        thing-especially for women and children.”

                        —————————–

                        Hillary doesn’t care about women, or any children that are not her own, as is evident in her smear attacks against the women Bill Clinton abused. Besides, “there is a special place in…” you know where, if you don’t abandon all your principles and fall in line with corruption. Hillary has a knack for letting everyone down, women and children included.

                        You Wrote:

                        “I think she beats herself up more over these so-called scandals than anyone else could do for her.”

                        ———————————

                        You “think,” and you “believe” a lot of completely false things, but most people know that Hillary is just sad she gets caught. Oh, but if it’s not technically “illegal,” and just an unethical betrayal of the public’s trust, you don’t seem to think it’s a problem. G.W. Bush avoided impeachment, on those same grounds.

                        You Wrote:

                        “She has been in a lot of scary situations, in which none of these other
                        candidates (or you) can relate.So, go ahead and keep delivering your blows to her (and your blows to me), she’s heard worse and so have I. Please, stop being ageist. I
                        haven’t brought your age into this.””

                        —————————————-

                        Ordinarily, a Republican would jump in and make a comment about Hillary’s “sniper fire” lie, but instead, I’ll bite; what “scary situations” has Hillary ever been in? I’ll assume you don’t mean all the investigations the Clintons brought on themselves.

                        Moreover, you don’t have a clue where I’ve been or what I’ve seen, and you brought up your age. You brought it up, as though it was relevant to the conversation. You.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Also, Trump not have cronies in DC? Are we thinking of the same Trump?”

                        Maybe not, you seem very misinformed. Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Yes, he can’t even shore up the Republican Party bosses to support him. They are too worried about Trump disrupting the corporate money streams in Washington, and they know Hillary will do everything in her power to preserve corrupt money and the industrialized war machine.

                        Furthermore, Trump has donated to politicians in Washington, like Hillary Clinton, to get preference on his business operations, but he has nothing, NOTHING to do with the political money streams that buy politicians. He has always been the one offering the bribe, and Hillary has been the one taking them. All Trump’s connections in the world, pale in comparison to the level of corruption the Clintons have cronies, loyalists, and experience to get away with. You, are proof of that. You’re defending EVERYTHING the Clintons do; forgiving all. It’s all okay, because partisan and unwavering support is exactly what the Clintons need and use to betray progressives. Trump couldn’t even do the right thing without getting criticized, but 30 years could go by before people would realize how they betrayed themselves by supporting the Clintons.

                      • MegLOL

                        I only replied that your assumption that all the young people wanted Sanders was ridiculous because I was young. That’s it. You’re the one that made my viewpoints about my age. That’s what makes you ageist. You.

                        Also, Americans have a million reasons to dislike Brexits even though you like to put things into black-and-white boxes… but I’ll give you two reasons: my aunt (English) and uncle (French) who live over there and hate the treatment of immigrants and fear more unrest and redtape traveling between their extended families.

                        Benghazi was a scary situation. Every hostage situation of American civilians was a scary situation. And probably much more we will never know. No one else in the campaign field has had her level of clearance and pressures. She made mistakes; it wasn’t just her. She fixed them as much as she could, and I know she won’t want to make them again. You learn by doing; she’s the only one that has really done any of this scary stuff. Making laws or selling buildings are child’s play compared to her work experiences.

                        Trump still has a lot of support in DC. Perhaps he doesn’t have the old-school, GOP bosses, but he has some friends in the Tea Party and most of my state’s officials have pledged support for him. Trump may not be able to be bought by other, but he can be tempted to make it so things are really easy for him when he gets out of office. We already know he used to not pay taxes, probably still doesn’t, he would love to not have to pay taxes without those pesky audits all the time. He could make that a possibility. He can buy himself, and that’s even more terrifying.

                      • Marion Emory

                        You Wrote:
                        “I only replied that your assumption that all the young people wanted
                        Sanders was ridiculous because I was young. That’s it. You’re the one
                        that made my viewpoints about my age. That’s what makes you ageist. You.”
                        ————————

                        I said, “independent and young voters.” I was speaking in general demographic terms, and you decided to personalize it, as though it buys credibility that you are “young.” Moreover, I said that independents and young voters want to run screaming from the Clintons, or something to that effect. Noted, that you did not claim to be an independent and failed to deny running and screaming, but let it be said, you are “22.” It’s a fact, just deal with it, that Hillary is extremely disliked among independents and (most) young voters. Sanders is hugely popular among independents and young voters. Hillary is going to struggle to even convince independents and young people to vote at all, and it’s playing with fire because if people start paying attention, they won’t like what they see with Clinton either.

                        It’s an ironic way the Hillary campaign continually backs itself into corners. First, she claimed that Sanders couldn’t accomplish anything. He would be totally powerless, despite is VAST legislative experience, and having earned the title “Amendment King” by passing more roll call Amendments than ANY other member of Congress, while it was controlled by Republicans.

                        Now, the ENTIRE premise of Hillary’s campaign hinges on people thinking that she is barely, almost slightly, not as bad as Trump. Nevertheless, Trump has no experience or government knowledge, no cronies with any power or influence, and absolutely ZERO loyalists. What is to become of the fear campaign against the man with the orange crown? On Trump’s best day, in his own view, he will parade around and do absolutely NOTHING. He doesn’t know or care about policy, unless it affects his own pocket book, and NOTHING could throw the entire corporate money stream into more disarray than Trump fighting with both parties to get a piece. There will be no alliance with Trump; neither side will ever be loyal or trust him, nor will he they. All he cares about is being popular, as a brand, not even a person. Trump represents an empty chair, where Congress will do whatever Democrats and Republicans already agree on. It’s Hillary’s “experience working with Republicans” behind closed doors, that people should worry about. It’s the policies that the Clintons support in a strategy to appease Republicans with conservative legislation then use Democratic leaders (cronies & loyalists, a.k.a. superdelegates) to rally liberals to support conservative legislation. Then, the Clintons take credit for the popular items, and blame Republicans for what’s unpopular. Meanwhile, it is the people that are suffering the consequences and get caught up in a partisan game.

                        It’s already been proven that Hillary can sink to the lowest depths of unethical actions, and that Democrats will be totally irrational in forgiving the Clintons for anything they have done. It’s dangerous, and it’s a lot more dangerous than an ignorant little man with no real power in Washington, no cronies, no loyalists, no experience, no knowledge of government procedure, doing anything but waving at a camera, and getting impeached by his own party, or at the very least being opposed in the next Primary, by his own party. If voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, or Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, would help prevent Hillary from getting into office, then she doesn’t deserve to win. If enough people don’t like you to vote for you, you shouldn’t win. We’re supposed to vote the “lesser of the evils” but we can’t tell which one is the lesser.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Also, Americans have a million reasons to dislike Brexits even though you
                        like to put things into black-and-white boxes… but I’ll give you two
                        reasons: my aunt (English) and uncle (French) who live over there and
                        hate the treatment of immigrants and fear more unrest and redtape
                        traveling between their extended families.”
                        ———————————–

                        I am hardly the one putting “things into black-and-white boxes…” BREXIT, despite being put into a “black-and-white” box, meant a wide variety of things to a wide variety of people. Immigration policy was a part of it, for certain, but to others it meant independence, getting rid of David Cameron, and a rejection of trade policies. I’m sorry (if your claims are even true) that it might cause “redtape” to travel, but that is a problem that can be addressed with or without membership in the EU. What it all comes down to is that the EU can either punish or assist UK with the exit. It really depends on whether the EU wants to work with its neighbor– which is the entire premise they publicly support when talking about the purpose of the union–or they could use the EU’s economic power and leverage to disrupt the UK economy, and punish them.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Benghazi was a scary situation. Every hostage situation of American civilians was a scary
                        situation. And probably much more we will never know.”

                        I never knew that Hillary was a hostage in Benghazi. That would be scary, if it were true. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s not what you mean. In other words, people are supposed to think that Hillary was ‘scared’ while sitting out of harms way, and making bad decisions that led to the deaths of other people. It’s actually a bad idea to bring up anything about Benghazi, or Libya for that matter, because none of it has went well. Although an expose’ revealed that Hillary thought Libya would be a great success she would use to tout on the campaign trail, it’s more of an embarrassment than anything. And didn’t they send out an email telling people to try not to bring up Benghazi? Maybe it got deleted.

                        You Wrote:

                        “No one else in the campaign field has had her level of clearance and pressures.”
                        ——————————

                        No doubt. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary accessed all kinds of private FBI files on political enemies she didn’t even have the clearance or authority to view. I’m sure there were no limits to what Hillary would try to get into, and probably with success. It’s terrifying.

                        You Wrote:

                        “She made mistakes; it wasn’t just her. She fixed them as much as she could, and I know she won’t want to make them again.”
                        ——————————-

                        Hillary didn’t fix anything, or accomplish anything most people like, for that matter. It’s a sad campaign sitting around saying their sorry for everything Hillary has done. She’s learned from all the horrible decisions she has made 2016!

                        You Wrote:

                        “You learn by doing; she’s the only one that has really done any of this scary stuff.”
                        ——————————

                        Agreed. It’s terrifying really.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Making laws or selling buildings are child’s play compared to her work experiences.”
                        ——————————-

                        Hillary’s “work experiences” consist of things that both parties regret in their past. And still, that creepy Chuckie doll is still slightly less dangerous, and at least he admits he is fake.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Trump still has a lot of support in DC.”
                        ——————————-

                        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah. I bet everyone of them would stick their neck out and never throw him under the bus, because they trust him so much, and he never goes back on a deal. Who are these all powerful DC insiders, that actually think they can cut their behind closed door deals, without Trump running his mouth about it? Some of the worst Washington insider Republicans are flocking to Hillary because she loves keeping secrets from the public and cutting deals.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Perhaps he doesn’t have the old-school, GOP bosses, but he has some friends in the Tea Party and most of my state’s officials have pledged support for him.”
                        —————————–

                        If “most” of your “state’s officials have pledged support for” Trump, he is most likely going to win your state anyway. With the Electoral College system, your vote won’t mean anything. It won’t matter whether he wins it by 2 points or 99, he will still get the electoral votes. Your best tactical strategy would be to support Gary Johnson, as Jill Stein is probably not on the ballot in a Republican state, and Johnson probably will be. It’s actually as good a time as any. It would be much better to support a third party candidate that would have no power in either party, and 55% of U.S. voters would prefer ANY candidate as an alternative to Trump or Hillary. It’s a great time to help build third parties.

                        You Wrote:

                        “Trump may not be able to be bought by other, but he can be tempted to make it so things are really easy for him when he gets out of office.”
                        ———————————–

                        Of course Trump can be bought. He’s always selling himself; he just goes back on the deal. And again, with ZERO government policy or procedural experience, how exactly is Trumy going to “make it so things are really easy for him?”

                        You Wrote:

                        “We already know he used to not pay taxes, probably still doesn’t, he would love to not have to pay taxes without those pesky audits all the time. He could make that a possibility. He can buy himself, and that’s even more terrifying.”
                        —————————-

                        Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No corporation has ever needed to be the President to avoid paying taxes. We have indeed, struck upon the pinnacle of reasons to fear Donald Trump, he might have it “easy” (because he’s already rich) and he might evade taxes (again).

                        Well, I’m sold. Jill Stein or Gary Johnson it is.

                      • MegLOL

                        Oh my state will definitely elect Trump, but I want to do away with the Electoral College more than anything. Having yet another popular vote end up with small margins could give Congress and the people the motivation needed to make that final push towards getting rid of it. Voting for Hillary, I will help ensure that those numbers are close. So, no, it looks like neither one of our votes will “count” this year, but I think there is a better shot that the Electoral College will be dissolved before there is a shot that a 3rd party, well 4th if you count the Tea Party (and I do because of the state I live in), becomes a viable option. We need to dissolve the EC before a 3rd candidate really even has a chance.

                      • Marion Emory

                        Apparently you have no idea how the Electoral system works, or that voting for either majority party is precisely what keeps it in place.

                        The Electoral College is designed specifically to benefit a two party system. The absolute best way to force reform is to support a third party candidate. They only need to win a single state, to prevent either candidate from receiving the necessary 270 electoral votes. If that happens, it will expose the complete failing of the system as the House elects the President and the Senate elects the VP. We could end up with two candidates of entirely different parties, and regardless the outcome neither would be considered legitimate. With the red state blue state winner-take-all system, the ONLY way to end the Electoral College system is for a third party candidate to win a state, and that’s all they need, one.

                      • MegLOL

                        When Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket because he didn’t get the Republican nom, he won 88 electoral votes. That was in 1912, so when is this revolution going to happen? All he succeed in doing was splitting the Republican ticket, and Woodrow Wilson sweeped in to grab the needed electoral college votes. And,there have actually been others to win states and electoral votes worth more than just “one state.” The Republicans have already run risk analysis on adding a third party candidate, but decided that Hillary would definitely win that way… maybe even sweeping states like Texas if the Rep vote was so split, so they decided not to risk it. Why Democrats aren’t smart enough to see that all a third party candidate will do is hand the election to Trump is beyond me.

                      • Marion Emory

                        The Electoral College has only led to two Presidential Elections being decided in the House, one in 1800 and one in 1824. Naturally, a Hillary supporter would also have a tough time distinguishing between the 1800 and 2016. You might as well just debate against yourself.

                        Despite your facts being a misrepresentation of reality and things related, you’re simply making the point even stronger that the Electoral College is an outdated system, that needs to be reformed. Only a post or two ago, you made the claim that you’re against the Electoral College, and now you almost seem to be applauding it. Anything goes, right? Why would a person suddenly have convictions when supporting Hillary means not having principles?

                        Several Republican Party bosses are endorsing Clinton, most of them old Reagan and Bush administration cronies. Sure they thought about running an independent candidate, but they found that Hillary was more in line with Reagan and Bush era foreign policy, so the list is growing.

                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/

                        You are in such sad company with the Clintons. Naturally, the Clintons and their Reagan/Bush cronies represent exactly what independent and a significant portion of both parties are sick and tired of. Even Republicans knew enough to reject Bush, although they didn’t have any good alternatives. Where did JEB’s Wall Street money go? To Clinton, of course.

                        http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/23/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-still-favorites-of-wall-street-banks/

                        You are in sad company with the Clintons.

                        Again, if Hillary can’t beat Trump because people don’t want to vote for her, she deserves to lose. Moreover, Trump is no threat, and Clintonians are proving they were full of it when they said Sanders couldn’t do anything, with his record making legislative accomplishments. You’re back on the fear Trump campaign, but there’s nothing to fear; not for you or I at least. I suppose you could be connected to some elite political family that could be affected by a disruption of the network of corporate bribes in Washington, but the rest of us are just average people, and average people always lose in the equation.

                        So people are supposed to fear Trump, when he has ZERO government or policy experience, no insider cronies, no loyalists, when Hillary Clinton is in tight with the worst of both parties and represents and has supported a great deal of the things most Americans are against.

                        Trump and Hillary are both horrible candidates; apparently, the worst in history–both of them–but Hillary is dangerous. It’s more of a wonder why Trump wouldn’t be higher on the list against Hillary, but for rational people, neither deserves a vote. A weight was lifted from my shoulders when I accepted that regardless of Trump or Clinton, the outcome is going to be putrid and vile, and the people that supported Hillary helped make it a hard decision for independents in the General Election. Since the Electoral College hasn’t been rocked for nearly 200 years, I’d say it’s about time. At the very least, let history record as many voters as possible voting for a third party candidate to reflect the dire reality we face.

                      • MegLOL

                        You KNOW we were agreeing that the Electoral College was outdated and ONLY arguing over the best way to defeat the Electoral College. You thought a third party winning “one state” would do it. I showed you how history proves that won’t help. That’s all I said. (Even though I also could have mentioned the many more times a third party candidate has achieved the equal to sum or more than sum of just “one state’s” Electoral College votes.)You are just trying to misrepresent me now. I’m done talking to you. You have no respect for me, so I don’t at all care what you want me to think or do. I don’t vote straight ticket btw. There are several Republicans and Independents I routinely vote for from my state. I can make up my own mind who I want leading me without blindly following the party ticket, like you claim. I wanted Hillary in 2008 when I couldn’t vote; nothing’s changed now except that now I can. Again, the only thing I cared about was the whole #BernieOrBust/not voting comments you made. Now that you are voting for Jill or Johnson or whoever, I don’t really care as long as Trump doesn’t get elected. His racist remarks and poking fun at that reporter with a disability soured my stomach so hard I cannot even look at him. I would be able to look at Jill, Johnson, or Hillary as our leader, but we already know who I’ve decided to vote for…

                        Happy 4th of July weekend! See you at the poles in November!

                      • MegLOL

                        *polls.

                        But I also wanted to add that I don’t get my info from the Washington Post once I realized how biased they are towards conservatives, which may be your problem. You might ask yourself why would a right-leaning paper write such a thing about Hillary? They see HER as the threat which means they think she will win if they don’t poison liberal minds against her. In fact, looking at all your resources, you either have far left or far right but no true journalist no biased reporting. I would be careful of that if I were you.

                      • Marion Emory

                        You Wrote:

                        “You KNOW we were agreeing that the Electoral College was outdated and
                        ONLY arguing over the best way to defeat the Electoral College. You
                        thought a third party winning “one state” would do it. I showed you how
                        history proves that won’t help. That’s all I said. (Even though I also
                        could have mentioned the many more times a third party candidate has
                        achieved the equal to sum or more than sum of just “one state’s”
                        Electoral College votes.)You are just trying to misrepresent me now. I’m
                        done talking to you. You have no respect for me, so I don’t at all care
                        what you want me to think or do.”

                        ——————————-

                        You’re the one misrepresenting. I said that it can be done by just winning one state, not that winning any state would accomplish it. It would have to be a swing-state, and the electoral vote would have to be close. Supporting either of the majority parties, will have ZERO effect on the outcome you said you desired. If the election is close, as you said you wanted it to be, and you only vote for the majority party candidates, then it’s going to go for one or the other. It has no potential to trigger a contingent election. The only way to do it is to have an election between two very disliked candidates, whereas a third party can manage to win a state, a swing-state, that doesn’t want either Hillary or Trump. Voting for the Democrat in the Republican controlled state just ensures your vote will never translate to an electoral vote.

                        You Wrote:

                        “I don’t vote straight ticket btw.
                        There are several Republicans and Independents I routinely vote for from
                        my state. I can make up my own mind who I want leading me without
                        blindly following the party ticket, like you claim. I wanted Hillary in
                        2008 when I couldn’t vote; nothing’s changed now except that now I can.”

                        ———————————

                        I never said you followed the party ticket; I wouldn’t have insight into such things. However, I did say that you will blindly follow and defend Hillary no matter how despicable her behavior is, no matter what Republican policies she already supports, no matter if she continues to betray the public’s trust. I think that’s different than just towing the party line, and it’s far more heinous.

                        I also supported Hillary going into the 2008 Primary. However, the smear campaign she ran against Obama, with her campaign starting the birther movement, and rumors that he was a Muslim really turned me off. Hillary shamed Obama in a speech, and her supporters were as racist as some Trump supporters, not to mention Bill and his racist comments. Hillary made sure I would never support her again, when she brought up Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as a reason not to drop out and endorse Obama.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y

                        You Wrote:

                        “Again, the only thing I cared about was the whole #BernieOrBust/not
                        voting comments you made. Now that you are voting for Jill or Johnson or
                        whoever, I don’t really care as long as Trump doesn’t get elected. His
                        racist remarks and poking fun at that reporter with a disability soured
                        my stomach so hard I cannot even look at him.”
                        ———————————–

                        You’re just all over the place. My preferences in order are Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or lastly Trump. Notice that Hillary Clinton is nowhere in that list, but I’ve got to admit that having had this pointless conversation with you, I’ve leaned more toward finding Trump palatable compared to the Clintons.

                        By the way, Trump says things that are vile, but the Clintons actually do vile things. Actions speak louder than words.

                        You Wrote:

                        “I would be able to look at Jill, Johnson, or Hillary as our leader, but we already know who I’ve decided to vote for…

                        Happy 4th of July weekend! See you at the poles in November!”
                        ————————-

                        #BernieOrBust

                      • MegLOL

                        I hope you are happy with President Trump. Millions of minorities will now have to suffer because you had to have your precious protest vote.

                      • Marion Emory

                        Wow, and my state didn’t even come close. I didn’t realize my vote was so powerful.

                        Nevertheless, Hillary’s campaign, the DNC and media colluded to smear Bernie Sanders, and “elevate” Trump. This is their fault and we can blame Hillary supporters for not listening to reason in the Primary.

                        I voted for Gary Johnson, because Jill Stein wasn’t on the ballot in my state. If I had voted any differently, I would have regretted it. Apparently, you didn’t notice, but third parties did horrible. They didn’t have an impact anywhere, except maybe Utah, and it wouldn’t have changed the result in the Electoral vote.

                        Hillary lost this; not Bernie, not his supporters, not people that couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her. On the bright side, Elizabeth Warren has a very strong chance to become the first female President of the United States that women can actually be proud of. For the next four years, we can all point blame, or… WE can utilize this moment to unite against this temporary setback. Just don’t even think about running Hillary again in 2020. That’s going to be Warren’s year.

                        Democrats have 4 years to become the party they’ve been pretending to be.

                      • MegLOL

                        Yeah, the facts are that the democratic base didn’t have enough votes. Y’alls votes should have gone that way; then we could really see how the numbers would have changed in those too close states. But whatever, you obviously wanted Trump to win. And you got it. Congrats.

                        I would vote for Warren for the good of my party (I’m not unreasonable like you); however, I thought her name calling and other low brow behavior during this campaign was on par with Trump’s at times. She definitely didn’t even try to “go high.” Also, how effective could she really be at convincing voters to vote for her if she couldn’t even get your vote this time for Hillary? If Warren can actually show she can work across the aisle to make things happen these next 4 years, she might have a shot… but that has not been a strong suit for her.

                        The next Democratic woman I’m excited about is Kamala Harris. We’ll have to see what she can do.

                        I think we lost the female presidency candidates for awhile though. I think it is more likely that Cory Booker or (my hopeful, because we need Ohio back) Sherrod Brown will be the next Dems to try for president. Maybe in the end, it will be the Republicans who get the first female president… sigh. I’m glad that even if that happens, I can tell my future daughter that I voted for the first woman to run on a major ticket for president… and that most of the country wanted her as their president, too. It was a huge step in the right direction, and I’m glad I was a part of it.

                      • Marion Emory

                        Barely more than half (56%) of eligible voters voted. That means that Hillary’s half, comes in at about 28% to 29%, and a significant portion of those voters were only voting against Trump. If you tell you daughter that “most of the country wanted her as their president,” you’ll be lying.

                      • MegLOL

                        Oh wow…lol!! Such a delayed reaction; you really carried that thought of not being on the right side of history when it comes to your daughter around in your head all day, huh? Well, I’ll never have that problem! Don’t let it plague you too long; by your reaction just now, I’m sure you’ve learned and won’t make the same mistake twice now. Plus, it’s really okay; I’ve got your back! I helped make history for your daughter for you. You’re welcome.

                      • Marion Emory

                        I have no idea what your rant is about. “Delayed reaction?” Do you think I log onto this regularly? I’ll log into disqus when I want to comment on another article and when the little red notifications pop up people can wait for my response when I get around to doing it again.

                      • Marion Emory

                        No wait, that’s not right. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got about a combined 7%, so that puts Hillary at slightly more than half of 49% (24.6%) Something around that.

                      • MegLOL

                        I just wanted to point out that this comment of mine above looks like it was right on the money about the Electoral a College. Thank you.

                      • MegLOL

                        Also, if you call Trump’s racism just “wacky”, there is something wrong there.

                      • Marion Emory

                        Bill Clinton’s racism too.

                      • Marion Emory

                        P.S. Bernie Sanders is known as the “Amendment King” for getting more roll call amendments passed than ANY member of Congress. Guess how many Hillary ever got passed… ZERO.

                    • real Macaroni

                      Ok please stop. Being incorporated or registered to do business in Delaware does not allow you to evade taxes in other states or countries in any way. That’s an ignorant idea which betrays a very limited understanding of how corporations and taxes work. In fact, Delaware has a higher corporate tax rate than most states, including higher than California and Massachusetts. A registered agent is simply a 3rd party who accepts service when you are sued. So for example if a mail order company doesn’t have any in-state address, a plaintiff can still serve them in his state of residence since if they are offering products for delivery to that state they are legally required to maintain a registered agent there. So, it’s the equivalent of renting a P.O. box. I’m sure you have the intelligence and energy to find lots of articles that show Hillary is corrupt and evil but this is not the article.

                • real Macaroni

                  Sanders also said a lot of crap to get votes… such as promising free tuition, universal healthcare, and also free taco tuesdays nationwide if memory serves… all empty promises, and if Sanders truly believed that he could deliver doesn’t reflect well on him either

                • Delusionalmyass

                  So, who did YOU vote for, if I may ask. I must confess I did not vote for Hillary or Trump. Instead, I wrote in Trey Gowdy, with Ben Carson as VP, simply because I believe in “We the people”.

                  • Marion Emory

                    Elizabeth Warren 2020!

      • Duke_of_Zork

        Not illegal, you’re right. Not unethical, that’s dubious. Especially if you’re on record criticizing this sort of thing.

        • real Macaroni

          Her comment about shell companies is actually irrelevant to
          the article… Delaware law is favorable to corporations but doesn’t
          help them evade taxation or hurt consumers. It comes into play when a
          shareholder sues the corporation since they have the most extensive body
          of corporate governance caselaw of any jurisdiction on earth. Nothing
          to do with shell corporations. By the way, the tax rate in Delaware is higher than California’s and most states, so they are definitely taking advantage of the fact that many businesses incorporate there. It’s not a tax haven by any means, and you can’t evade taxes in other states or countries by incorporating in Delaware.

          • Marc Stinebaugh

            A friend of mine was told by a billionaire he met that if he incorporated his company there, he would only pay $500 per year in federal taxes on his business.

    • D.l. Hannah

      Not any of this is illegal…just unethical for me

      • Mikey

        Many of our laws are no longer ethical. They need to change. And when her platform is supposedly about changing the laws to be more ethical, this is a huge conflict of interest IMO. We know these kind of tax loopholes won’t be addressed by people that benefit from them.

    • In a sane world, the U.S. would be proud of being the largest tax-haven in the world while Democrats and Republicans would be laughed at for wanting to institute taxes.

    • Debamboozler

      Trump is spineless, deeply flawed and hypocritical. Just another BS artist lacking the courage to take on the system head-on! Of course, if he did, he would wind-up getting the JFK treatment. If Trump is true to his word and assumes the presidency, he will have to retreat to a secret underground bunker and conduct his administration as a holographic projection.

    • Alan Weber

      This is a non-issue, incorporating in DE doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay taxes in earning in other states, just not to DE. You will still pay taxes in other states where you have to foreign qualify to do business.

      • Mildred Yocum

        “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”…..!cg950ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !cg950n:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsZoomGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!cg950n….,.

      • Deckard1138

        Thanks for expressing such a parochial, insular view of what’s going on in Delaware – and other US-based tax havens like it. It’s not all about you, sunshine.

        You seem to be blissfully unaware that Delaware most certainly harbours the ill-gotten gains of any number of foreign drug lords, kingpins, despots and dictators – all welcome with open arms, and no questions asked.

        As the US hypocritically rails against foreign tax havens and roll-out its FATCA jihaad to ensure its iron grip over the world’s financial system, it invites all the rats to scurry in from the four corners of the globe to find safe havens in Delaware, Nevada, Florida, Texas and on and on. Yup, that’s American ingenuity for you – at its amoral best.

        • real Macaroni

          corps in every state engage in money laundering… half of downtown Miami was developed with laundered drug money, sunshine. And you’re conflating laundering with tax evasion, or you probably just don’t care. How exactly does Delaware law make it more attractive for money launderers? Laundering has more to do with what bank you use than where you’re incorporated… Delaware corporations have to file federal returns, just like everyone else

    • Scott Baird

      If using a Delaware corp was illegal then I would expect them to be disqualified. But in a sane world I would expect smart people to use the existing laws to their benefit.

    • TecumsehUnfaced

      In a sane world this would disqualify them both.