DC Tom Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Sure he did Name one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 And you post things that don't deserve to be posted, so what? I don't know what's less surprising, that you stand up for the known anti-semetic hateful asshat or that you support suppressing free speech. Way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You have to look to the actual results to see the survey results are Hillary Clinton 48 percent, Donald Trump 45 percent. If Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, then everything people are watching within the RNC will happen tenfold with the DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Name one. He was a Senator, for one I don't know what's less surprising, that you stand up for the known anti-semetic hateful asshat or that you support suppressing free speech. Way to go. He's an anti-semite? No way, I don't believe you If Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, then everything people are watching within the RNC will happen tenfold with the DNC. No. That will be mostly on Hillary and she will have to go away. The Democratic party will only get stronger under a Trump Presidency, IMO. Heck, Dems will probably work with him and run against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 He's an anti-semite? No way, I don't believe you His posting history is all there for you to read for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 No. That will be mostly on Hillary and she will have to go away. You keep telling yourself that, buttercup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You keep telling yourself that, buttercup. Well, this buttercup will believe Trump can win when he sees it. I do not believe he has a snowballs chance in hell to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Well, this buttercup will believe Trump can win when he sees it. I do not believe he has a snowballs chance in hell to win. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280124-trump-closing-gap-with-clinton-poll-shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280124-trump-closing-gap-with-clinton-poll-shows online poll... This fits right in with what I always say. The media is not partisan, its a business. Of course they want a horse race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 He was a Senator, for one . Besides occasionally showing up and voting present, what did he do that made him qualified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 He was a Senator, for one Doesn't qualify him...not executive experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-viral-nightmare-a-video-of-her-lying-for-13-minutes/2016/05/17/ea59e32c-1c66-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html Nothing new just a consolidation of her highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) Wow..... As the movie shows, the Clintons are political Teflon dons compared with another Beltway power couple, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen. The McDonnells were convicted of accepting more than $150,000 in gifts from a businessman while the governor was in office. Meanwhile, the Clintons raked in seven hundred times that amount $105 million under the pretext of speaking fees while Hillary was in public office. Yet while the McDonnells face time in the Big House, the Clintons are once again aiming for the White House. The Clintons earned the bulk of their money from speaking fees. It was simple: Bills fees skyrocketed when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, suggesting that countries and companies hiring him counted on getting more than just Bill they also expected to land what his wife had to offer. For example, a Nigerian newspaper publisher tied to the ruling Peoples Democratic Party which is anything but democratic paid Bill a whopping $1.4 million to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 2012. The Clintons closed their eyes to the human-rights abuses by Nigerias brutal president, Goodluck Jonathan, as they collected their checks. Secretary Clinton even made an official visit to Nigeria in 2012, congratulating Jonathan on his nonexistent reform efforts. It was American legitimacy bestowed at a bargain price. And just the opposite of what Human Rights Watch had implored her to do. http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/ Edited May 18, 2016 by truth on hold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Wow..... As the movie shows, the Clintons are political Teflon dons compared with another Beltway power couple, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen. The McDonnells were convicted of accepting more than $150,000 in gifts from a businessman while the governor was in office. Meanwhile, the Clintons raked in seven hundred times that amount $105 million under the pretext of speaking fees while Hillary was in public office. Yet while the McDonnells face time in the Big House, the Clintons are once again aiming for the White House. The Clintons earned the bulk of their money from speaking fees. It was simple: Bills fees skyrocketed when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, suggesting that countries and companies hiring him counted on getting more than just Bill they also expected to land what his wife had to offer. For example, a Nigerian newspaper publisher tied to the ruling Peoples Democratic Party which is anything but democratic paid Bill a whopping $1.4 million to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 2012. The Clintons closed their eyes to the human-rights abuses by Nigerias brutal president, Goodluck Jonathan, as they collected their checks. Secretary Clinton even made an official visit to Nigeria in 2012, congratulating Jonathan on his nonexistent reform efforts. It was American legitimacy bestowed at a bargain price. And just the opposite of what Human Rights Watch had implored her to do. http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/ The McDonnell's are not now and have never been a "Beltway power couple." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) Hillary Might Have Just Made Her Worst Mistake Ever At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton told the crowd that if she were president, she would put her husband Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy.” The impulse is understandable. The economy of the 1990s was good, or seemed to be prior to the collapse of the dot com bubble. But Hillary’s promise to bring back Bill and put him “in charge of” the economy is, I think, a horrible blunder. Here’s why. First, it undermines the entire rationale of Hillary’s candidacy. Donald Trump responded appropriately: Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Crooked Hillary said her husband is going to be in charge of the economy.If so, he should run,not her.Will he bring the "energizer" to D.C.? 10:17 AM - 17 May 2016 That’s right. If Bill is responsible for the economy, the number one priority of most voters, isn’t he the real president? Is Hillary just a surrogate? Doesn’t she have her own ideas about some of the most important matters facing the country? More at the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/hillary-might-have-just-made-her-worst-mistake-ever.php . Edited May 18, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Doesn't qualify him...not executive experience. Yes it does. And running an election campaign is executive experience Hillary Might Have Just Made Her Worst Mistake Ever At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton told the crowd that if she were president, she would put her husband Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy.” The impulse is understandable. The economy of the 1990s was good, or seemed to be prior to the collapse of the dot com bubble. But Hillary’s promise to bring back Bill and put him “in charge of” the economy is, I think, a horrible blunder. Here’s why. First, it undermines the entire rationale of Hillary’s candidacy. Donald Trump responded appropriately: That’s right. If Bill is responsible for the economy, the number one priority of most voters, isn’t he the real president? Is Hillary just a surrogate? Doesn’t she have her own ideas about some of the most important matters facing the country? More at the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/hillary-might-have-just-made-her-worst-mistake-ever.php . Ha ha, maybe Trump would respect him if he had a degree from the failed Trump university Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Yes it does. And running an election campaign is executive experience So his campaign manager has better qualifications? And please explain how senatorial experience is a qualification. Given that I already described why it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 So his campaign manager has better qualifications? And please explain how senatorial experience is a qualification. Given that I already described why it isn't. Obama was the campaign manager's boss. You did not explain anything, you just made a moronic statement. Being a senator is experience in government. Good enough. There is no true "experience" to be president. "Executive experience" at the state level is a far cry from being Commander and Chief of the nation, anyway. Lincoln did not have executive experience either, but won a war as President and is considered by myself as a great president. Many other important historians think so too. I do not like Donald Trump, but the last criticism of him I would have is his lack of executive experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Obama was the campaign manager's boss. You did not explain anything, you just made a moronic statement. Being a senator is experience in government. Good enough. There is no true "experience" to be president. "Executive experience" at the state level is a far cry from being Commander and Chief of the nation, anyway. Lincoln did not have executive experience either, but won a war as President and is considered by myself as a great president. Many other important historians think so too. I do not like Donald Trump, but the last criticism of him I would have is his lack of executive experience. I didn't say I explained, I said I described. Which was a far cry better than your "yes it is!" empty-headedness. And where is their ANY evidence that "experience in government" is a qualification? Particularly since theis hasn't been a remotely successful president with strictly legislative experience since Kennedy (and even that's highly arguable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I didn't say I explained, I said I described. Which was a far cry better than your "yes it is!" empty-headedness. And where is their ANY evidence that "experience in government" is a qualification? Particularly since theis hasn't been a remotely successful president with strictly legislative experience since Kennedy (and even that's highly arguable). How can I argue such subjective topics with you? You can argue that LBJ was successful, hell, VERY successful, on the domestic front and terrible, like Mr. Executive experience Bush, on the foreign front. And look where executive experience got Nixon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts