Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 22:45:29 GMT
The point being that if Trump's rhetoric is responsible for pulling the KKK out from under their rock, Obama's rhetoric bears responsibility for igniting the violence at rallies and protest. LOL Nope that's on Trump too ... “knock the crap out of them … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” The crowd vociferously cheered him on. Our President has NEVER said anything close. He has been trying to calm tempers. SaveSaveI'm sorry, but no. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with Ferguson, Baltimore or slaughtering police. Just no.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 25, 2016 1:54:22 GMT
For crying out loud, if they sound credible too, I truly don't think I can vote for either one of them. Why can't we have a truly good person run for President?
Because a truly good person would never make it to power. These days, power requires candidates to make deals with people they shouldn't. And those people are going to want payback once the person is elected. Because a truly good person would never want to go through the hell that it takes to get elected. Would you want to put yourself and your family through that? And just think - if you WIN the presidency, now you get to deal with 4 years of people bashing you for everything you do, complaining about your spouse and constantly berating them for whatever they choose to do, and possibly giving your children the same treatment. Unfortunately, these may not be the candidates we need - but they are the candidates we deserve. We've made it such a horrific ordeal that only a certain type of person would want to apply for this job. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 25, 2016 2:28:57 GMT
but at least you aren't playing Russian roulette with our country. How naïve. Time and time and time again, the Clintons have sold out human rights, the environment, nuclear weapons, and control of uranium, to name just a few things, for cash. Haiti, Nigeria, Russia, India. Staggering sums of cash. They have sold out the interests of the U.S. and people around the world for cash. The thought of a Clinton presidency terrifies me. Google it yourself. The NYT carried a long and well-researched article on the uranium sell-out, and other reputable media outlets have carried other Clinton Cash verifications as well. You and I are taking away a very different interpretation of this story. I don't much like being told to look it up myself when someone wants me to accept her version of some article. But in this case, I did, and here is the NYT story I THINK beckytech was referring to.
I saw no reference to a sell-out. It is a very long article, mostly not about the Clintons, and I agree, it isn't particularly complimentary to them ... but it also does not include the indictment you claim it does. The Clintons' foundation received donations from the companies involved, but that money goes into international good works, not into the Clintons' pockets. Bill Clinton earned a big speaking fee in Russia ... not unheard-of. There was no evidence Hillary was directly involved in any of the decision making. I saw reporting about not all donations to the foundation being reported, but no further information about why that may have been. My google search also turned up factcheck.org and politifact.com investigations that debunked claims made against Hillary on this issue by the right-wing press. You have made a number of very strong charges against the Clintons in the post quoted above. I would never claim Hillary is squeaky-clean. No powerful person truly is. No president, except maybe Jimmy Carter, has been. But as many of us have been saying over and over again ... at least she isn't looney-toons like Trump. I get it that you don't like Hillary Clinton and nothing I say is going to change your mind. The way I see it, your objections to her usually turn out to be kind of overblown. And I guess you might be able to say the same thing about me in regards to Trump, but I'm mostly going by what I've seen and heard from the candidate himself. No need to interpret complicated history when Trump is disqualifying himself with his own words damn near every day.
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Jul 25, 2016 4:07:30 GMT
I also wish there was another choice but this is what we are left with. Trump is scary to me because he doesn't have any political history to judge him by but Hillary's political history scares me more. She has put the security of our nation at risk. She has sold access to herself, her husband and their foundation to middle eastern countries for hundreds of millions of dollars. And the FBI is not done. Will they be done by election time? I don't know. And though many won't agree, I believe, from many things I have read, that she is complicit in the upheaval in the middle east.
So, what now? Do I vote for someone who has said hateful things or someone who doesn't put country first? What I am sure of is that the system is broken and the only candidate left to turn it on its head is Trump because nothing will change, and will very likely worsen, if Hillary is elected.
If we are successful in the collapse of the political system as it is, then maybe in four years someone of real character and experience will step forward to lead.
ETA: I no longer consider myself a member of any party. Both parties are unrecognizable. That said, at this point in time, I am shying away from globalization because I feel like our problems are so big at home, that we are not in a position economically to help others. We need to take some time to reduce our debt so that our children aren't left with a country resembling Venezuela. So, for me, that is another strike against a vote for Hillary, too.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 25, 2016 4:21:31 GMT
How naïve. Time and time and time again, the Clintons have sold out human rights, the environment, nuclear weapons, and control of uranium, to name just a few things, for cash. Haiti, Nigeria, Russia, India. Staggering sums of cash. They have sold out the interests of the U.S. and people around the world for cash. The thought of a Clinton presidency terrifies me. Google it yourself. The NYT carried a long and well-researched article on the uranium sell-out, and other reputable media outlets have carried other Clinton Cash verifications as well. You and I are taking away a very different interpretation of this story. I don't much like being told to look it up myself when someone wants me to accept her version of some article. But in this case, I did, and here is the NYT story I THINK beckytech was referring to.
I saw no reference to a sell-out. It is a very long article, mostly not about the Clintons, and I agree, it isn't particularly complimentary to them ... but it also does not include the indictment you claim it does. The Clintons' foundation received donations from the companies involved, but that money goes into international good works, not into the Clintons' pockets. Bill Clinton earned a big speaking fee in Russia ... not unheard-of. There was no evidence Hillary was directly involved in any of the decision making. I saw reporting about not all donations to the foundation being reported, but no further information about why that may have been. My google search also turned up factcheck.org and politifact.com investigations that debunked claims made against Hillary on this issue by the right-wing press. You have made a number of very strong charges against the Clintons in the post quoted above. I would never claim Hillary is squeaky-clean. No powerful person truly is. No president, except maybe Jimmy Carter, has been. But as many of us have been saying over and over again ... at least she isn't looney-toons like Trump. I get it that you don't like Hillary Clinton and nothing I say is going to change your mind. The way I see it, your objections to her usually turn out to be kind of overblown. And I guess you might be able to say the same thing about me in regards to Trump, but I'm mostly going by what I've seen and heard from the candidate himself. No need to interpret complicated history when Trump is disqualifying himself with his own words damn near every day. Since the NYT made a point about how they had fact checked and verified the claims the author of Clinton Cash made, I figured there wasn't much to argue with. I watched Clinton Cash this afternoon. On the Russian deal, Bill made a heretofore unheard of sum of $500,000 for one speech in Russia. Altogether, they got $145 million for the Russian deal. In case you missed it, the deal was made while Hillary was head of the State Department and sailed through the approvals needed. Russia now has a controlling interest in the world's uranium supply. Putin likes to control energy interests.
You might want to watch the movie, if not read the book. And lest you think Peter Schweizer is right-wing, his next project is Jeb Bush. It's a pattern of behavior and results over and over and over. Hire Clinton to speak for remarkable sums of money, make a fat donation to the Clinton Foundation, and bingo, you get a fat contract. Is it good for the people? Sure, if you consider the beneficiaries are dictators and warlords with terrible human rights records. If ideals about the environment are suddenly abandoned because it's far more lucrative to support cutting down a rain forest. (But that's okay, it was just a one-time thing.)
I Googled Clinton and Haiti and all I can come up with are stories of angry people. Here's one that kind of provides a summary: Bill Clinton was put on the board of reconstruction for Haiti after the earthquake. Hillary was Secretary of State. Fat contracts were awarded. Little work was done. The Haitians are as bad or worse off than before. www.ijdh.org/2014/05/topics/economy/bill-hillary-and-the-haiti-debacle/ I get the government isn't totally on the up and up there, but neither were the contract awards and work done.
Yes, the charges are powerful, but the evidence is there and there are articles in many reputable publications of Clinton Cash transactions time after time after time.
This weekend there was a free screening of Clinton Cash at www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/ I wouldn't be surprised to see it held over.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 25, 2016 4:38:13 GMT
And P.S., lucyg, at this point I'm trying to figure out what brand of crazy I can vote for: Trump with all his faults or Johnson, whose party leader deemed a striptease an appropriate expression at their convention. <sigh>
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 4:47:20 GMT
Since the NYT made a point about how they had fact checked and verified the claims the author of Clinton Cash made, I figured there wasn't much to argue with. I watched Clinton Cash this afternoon. On the Russian deal, Bill made a heretofore unheard of sum of $500,000 for one speech in Russia. Altogether, they got $145 million for the Russian deal. In case you missed it, the deal was made while Hillary was head of the State Department and sailed through the approvals needed. Russia now has a controlling interest in the world's uranium supply. Putin likes to control energy interests.
You might want to watch the movie, if not read the book. And lest you think Peter Schweizer is right-wing, his next project is Jeb Bush. It's a pattern of behavior and results over and over and over. Hire Clinton to speak for remarkable sums of money, make a fat donation to the Clinton Foundation, and bingo, you get a fat contract. Is it good for the people? Sure, if you consider the beneficiaries are dictators and warlords with terrible human rights records. If ideals about the environment are suddenly abandoned because it's far more lucrative to support cutting down a rain forest. (But that's okay, it was just a one-time thing.)
I Googled Clinton and Haiti and all I can come up with are stories of angry people. Here's one that kind of provides a summary: Bill Clinton was put on the board of reconstruction for Haiti after the earthquake. Hillary was Secretary of State. Fat contracts were awarded. Little work was done. The Haitians are as bad or worse off than before. www.ijdh.org/2014/05/topics/economy/bill-hillary-and-the-haiti-debacle/ I get the government isn't totally on the up and up there, but neither were the contract awards and work done.
Yes, the charges are powerful, but the evidence is there and there are articles in many reputable publications of Clinton Cash transactions time after time after time.
This weekend there was a free screening of Clinton Cash at www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/ I wouldn't be surprised to see it held over.
link
You may want to check out the attached article that lays out 20 plus errors in Clinton Cash. I especially like the parts when he is interviewed and asked what his proof is he hedges left and right then he admits he has none but he really feels it should be investigated. Even Chris Wallace kept at him for his proof.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 25, 2016 5:51:46 GMT
You and I are taking away a very different interpretation of this story. I don't much like being told to look it up myself when someone wants me to accept her version of some article. But in this case, I did, and here is the NYT story I THINK beckytech was referring to.
I saw no reference to a sell-out. It is a very long article, mostly not about the Clintons, and I agree, it isn't particularly complimentary to them ... but it also does not include the indictment you claim it does. The Clintons' foundation received donations from the companies involved, but that money goes into international good works, not into the Clintons' pockets. Bill Clinton earned a big speaking fee in Russia ... not unheard-of. There was no evidence Hillary was directly involved in any of the decision making. I saw reporting about not all donations to the foundation being reported, but no further information about why that may have been. My google search also turned up factcheck.org and politifact.com investigations that debunked claims made against Hillary on this issue by the right-wing press. You have made a number of very strong charges against the Clintons in the post quoted above. I would never claim Hillary is squeaky-clean. No powerful person truly is. No president, except maybe Jimmy Carter, has been. But as many of us have been saying over and over again ... at least she isn't looney-toons like Trump. I get it that you don't like Hillary Clinton and nothing I say is going to change your mind. The way I see it, your objections to her usually turn out to be kind of overblown. And I guess you might be able to say the same thing about me in regards to Trump, but I'm mostly going by what I've seen and heard from the candidate himself. No need to interpret complicated history when Trump is disqualifying himself with his own words damn near every day. Since the NYT made a point about how they had fact checked and verified the claims the author of Clinton Cash made, I figured there wasn't much to argue with. I watched Clinton Cash this afternoon. On the Russian deal, Bill made a heretofore unheard of sum of $500,000 for one speech in Russia. Altogether, they got $145 million for the Russian deal. In case you missed it, the deal was made while Hillary was head of the State Department and sailed through the approvals needed. Russia now has a controlling interest in the world's uranium supply. Putin likes to control energy interests.
You might want to watch the movie, if not read the book. And lest you think Peter Schweizer is right-wing, his next project is Jeb Bush. It's a pattern of behavior and results over and over and over. Hire Clinton to speak for remarkable sums of money, make a fat donation to the Clinton Foundation, and bingo, you get a fat contract. Is it good for the people? Sure, if you consider the beneficiaries are dictators and warlords with terrible human rights records. If ideals about the environment are suddenly abandoned because it's far more lucrative to support cutting down a rain forest. (But that's okay, it was just a one-time thing.)
I Googled Clinton and Haiti and all I can come up with are stories of angry people. Here's one that kind of provides a summary: Bill Clinton was put on the board of reconstruction for Haiti after the earthquake. Hillary was Secretary of State. Fat contracts were awarded. Little work was done. The Haitians are as bad or worse off than before. www.ijdh.org/2014/05/topics/economy/bill-hillary-and-the-haiti-debacle/ I get the government isn't totally on the up and up there, but neither were the contract awards and work done.
Yes, the charges are powerful, but the evidence is there and there are articles in many reputable publications of Clinton Cash transactions time after time after time.
This weekend there was a free screening of Clinton Cash at www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/ I wouldn't be surprised to see it held over.
The author of Clinton Cash has admitted publicly that there is no actual evidence for many of the claims he made in the book. The Times article talked about Schweizer's "forthcoming" book, so I will take their confirmation of his claims with a grain of salt. It wasn't even published yet. Not going to watch the movie, not going to read the book. The world has enough right-wing media going on already. I'm not going to encourage it one little bit.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 25, 2016 16:08:40 GMT
You may want to check out the attached article that lays out 20 plus errors in Clinton Cash. I especially like the parts when he is interviewed and asked what his proof is he hedges left and right then he admits he has none but he really feels it should be investigated. Even Chris Wallace kept at him for his proof. Of course there will be some errors in such an undertaking, but as I suspected, when you have to start quibbling over things like well ... he only got paid for 1 of the speeches, not 3 of them... then the pickings are pretty slim. Proof may be difficult, but there is, as he says, a pattern of behavior. If it is all innocence and light, then why the request for a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch. I don't know if this was covered in the book, but this is the type of thing that surrounds them: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 16:22:06 GMT
You may want to check out the attached article that lays out 20 plus errors in Clinton Cash. I especially like the parts when he is interviewed and asked what his proof is he hedges left and right then he admits he has none but he really feels it should be investigated. Even Chris Wallace kept at him for his proof. Of course there will be some errors in such an undertaking, but as I suspected, when you have to start quibbling over things like well ... he only got paid for 1 of the speeches, not 3 of them... then the pickings are pretty slim. Proof may be difficult, but there is, as he says, a pattern of behavior. If it is all innocence and light, then why the request for a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch. I don't know if this was covered in the book, but this is the type of thing that surrounds them: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/ A while back I posted an article that a reporter had spent years trying to find actual proof of supposed Clinton scandals. Couldn't find a thing. I can speculate all I want but without actual proof it's just speculation and a way to spread misinformation. And that is exactly what this book and video did.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 18:12:40 GMT
Since the NYT made a point about how they had fact checked and verified the claims the author of Clinton Cash made, I figured there wasn't much to argue with. I watched Clinton Cash this afternoon. On the Russian deal, Bill made a heretofore unheard of sum of $500,000 for one speech in Russia. Altogether, they got $145 million for the Russian deal. In case you missed it, the deal was made while Hillary was head of the State Department and sailed through the approvals needed. Russia now has a controlling interest in the world's uranium supply. Putin likes to control energy interests.
You might want to watch the movie, if not read the book. And lest you think Peter Schweizer is right-wing, his next project is Jeb Bush. It's a pattern of behavior and results over and over and over. Hire Clinton to speak for remarkable sums of money, make a fat donation to the Clinton Foundation, and bingo, you get a fat contract. Is it good for the people? Sure, if you consider the beneficiaries are dictators and warlords with terrible human rights records. If ideals about the environment are suddenly abandoned because it's far more lucrative to support cutting down a rain forest. (But that's okay, it was just a one-time thing.)
I Googled Clinton and Haiti and all I can come up with are stories of angry people. Here's one that kind of provides a summary: Bill Clinton was put on the board of reconstruction for Haiti after the earthquake. Hillary was Secretary of State. Fat contracts were awarded. Little work was done. The Haitians are as bad or worse off than before. www.ijdh.org/2014/05/topics/economy/bill-hillary-and-the-haiti-debacle/ I get the government isn't totally on the up and up there, but neither were the contract awards and work done.
Yes, the charges are powerful, but the evidence is there and there are articles in many reputable publications of Clinton Cash transactions time after time after time.
This weekend there was a free screening of Clinton Cash at www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/ I wouldn't be surprised to see it held over.
The author of Clinton Cash has admitted publicly that there is no actual evidence for many of the claims he made in the book.The Times article talked about Schweizer's "forthcoming" book, so I will take their confirmation of his claims with a grain of salt. It wasn't even published yet. Not going to watch the movie, not going to read the book. The world has enough right-wing media going on already. I'm not going to encourage it one little bit. The no evidence, doesn't mean what you think it means. It's true that he has no evidence that connects the dots. As in no smoking gun - no emails "exist" that reveal any connection or anything like that. But the indisputable, public record facts he lays out, in a timeline, show a clear pattern that is too vast to be coincidence and vast enough that she's still under federal investigation for public corruption in relation to this. That the FBI feels there's enough evidence to investigate speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 25, 2016 18:35:05 GMT
The author of Clinton Cash has admitted publicly that there is no actual evidence for many of the claims he made in the book.The Times article talked about Schweizer's "forthcoming" book, so I will take their confirmation of his claims with a grain of salt. It wasn't even published yet. Not going to watch the movie, not going to read the book. The world has enough right-wing media going on already. I'm not going to encourage it one little bit. The no evidence, doesn't mean what you think it means. It's true that he has no evidence that connects the dots. As in no smoking gun - no emails "exist" that reveal any connection or anything like that. But the indisputable, public record facts he lays out, in a timeline, show a clear pattern that is too vast to be coincidence and vast enough that she's still under federal investigation for public corruption in relation to this. That the FBI feels there's enough evidence to investigate speaks volumes. Once again, you and I have very different interpretations of the facts. Republicans have been smearing Hillary for decades now. The fact that they've never been able to prove anything is what speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 25, 2016 18:40:09 GMT
The author of Clinton Cash has admitted publicly that there is no actual evidence for many of the claims he made in the book.The Times article talked about Schweizer's "forthcoming" book, so I will take their confirmation of his claims with a grain of salt. It wasn't even published yet. Not going to watch the movie, not going to read the book. The world has enough right-wing media going on already. I'm not going to encourage it one little bit. The no evidence, doesn't mean what you think it means. It's true that he has no evidence that connects the dots. As in no smoking gun - no emails "exist" that reveal any connection or anything like that. But the indisputable, public record facts he lays out, in a timeline, show a clear pattern that is too vast to be coincidence and vast enough that she's still under federal investigation for public corruption in relation to this. That the FBI feels there's enough evidence to investigate speaks volumes. Then you agree with Michal Moore and his movie content then? Because it is about the same.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 25, 2016 18:41:57 GMT
I also wish there was another choice but this is what we are left with. Trump is scary to me because he doesn't have any political history to judge him by but Hillary's political history scares me more. She has put the security of our nation at risk. She has sold access to herself, her husband and their foundation to middle eastern countries for hundreds of millions of dollars. And the FBI is not done. Will they be done by election time? I don't know. And though many won't agree, I believe, from many things I have read, that she is complicit in the upheaval in the middle east. So, what now? Do I vote for someone who has said hateful things or someone who doesn't put country first? What I am sure of is that the system is broken and the only candidate left to turn it on its head is Trump because nothing will change, and will very likely worsen, if Hillary is elected. If we are successful in the collapse of the political system as it is, then maybe in four years someone of real character and experience will step forward to lead. ETA: I no longer consider myself a member of any party. Both parties are unrecognizable. That said, at this point in time, I am shying away from globalization because I feel like our problems are so big at home, that we are not in a position economically to help others. We need to take some time to reduce our debt so that our children aren't left with a country resembling Venezuela. So, for me, that is another strike against a vote for Hillary, too. I'm curious to ask what actions of Donald Trump have shown you he will put his country first? He is generally "all about the Donald" on a regular basis.
I also would like to know what change you are thinking Donald will make?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 18:53:32 GMT
The no evidence, doesn't mean what you think it means. It's true that he has no evidence that connects the dots. As in no smoking gun - no emails "exist" that reveal any connection or anything like that. But the indisputable, public record facts he lays out, in a timeline, show a clear pattern that is too vast to be coincidence and vast enough that she's still under federal investigation for public corruption in relation to this. That the FBI feels there's enough evidence to investigate speaks volumes. Once again, you and I have very different interpretations of the facts. Republicans have been smearing Hillary for decades now. The fact that they've never been able to prove anything is what speaks volumes. Yeah, damn that blue dress, impeachment, classified emails and vast numbers of proven lies! Sort of casts an ugly cloud over their perfect little halos don't they.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jul 25, 2016 19:10:55 GMT
The no evidence, doesn't mean what you think it means. It's true that he has no evidence that connects the dots. As in no smoking gun - no emails "exist" that reveal any connection or anything like that. But the indisputable, public record facts he lays out, in a timeline, show a clear pattern that is too vast to be coincidence and vast enough that she's still under federal investigation for public corruption in relation to this. That the FBI feels there's enough evidence to investigate speaks volumes. Once again, you and I have very different interpretations of the facts. Republicans have been smearing Hillary for decades now. The fact that they've never been able to prove anything is what speaks volumes. I seem to recall they did prove she was extremely careless with the handling of classified emails and that she did delete thousands. They just chose not to do anything about it.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 25, 2016 22:14:04 GMT
This appeared on my Twitter timeline this morning: "The party of Lincoln's nominee for President of the United States Ladies and Gents." ....... "Donald J Trump @realdonaldtrump Pocahontas wanted V.P.slot so badly but wasn't chosen because she has done nothing in the Senate. Also Crooked Hillary hates her!" This tweet came after he spent yesterday morning whining about Cruz's speech and declaring he doesn't want his endorsement anyway. When you and others get ready to vote you may want to think about this childish behavior dealing with world leaders when you cast your vote. If I have to choose between childish behavior and reckless and gross incompetence, it's an easy choice. And while I'm at it, actions speak louder than words. Trump has never been accused of being unkind to those who have worked for him while there are many, many accounts of Hillary treating people like crap. She is a fraud. At least he doesn't pretend to be someone else. ETA: I'd rather know what to expect from someone than be stabbed in the back. Uhm, he repeatedly ran up debt and intentionally filed bankruptcies, causing how knows how many people to lose their jobs while he bragged about his financial prowess. In fact, he's said in interviews that he really didn't care what it did to his employees. He's intentionally not paid contractors hired to do a job - not because they didn't do the job well, but because he just didn't feel like paying them. And just during the campaign, the way he talks about other people is clearly derogative. If he's willing to behave that way while applying for a job before millions of people, I can only imagine what he's like in private.
I saw probably the most powerful political ad I've ever seen the other night. It was for Clinton, but she didn't say a word. It showed several instances of Trump speaking publicly, using the F-bomb and speaking crudely, and children sitting and watching the TV.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 25, 2016 22:19:36 GMT
I saw probably the most powerful political ad I've ever seen the other night. It was for Clinton, but she didn't say a word. It showed several instances of Trump speaking publicly, using the F-bomb and speaking crudely, and children sitting and watching the TV. He's his own worst enemy.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 25, 2016 22:19:53 GMT
To sum it up: Both sides do the same thing when it comes to supporting/hating, believing/not believing bad stuff, giving a pass to the nonsense the candidate has pulled, calling names, calling out lies, finger pointing and so on. Both Clinton and Trump have huge faults that, apparently, those supporting them don't care enough about to change their minds. Each voter assigns whatever weight they feel appropriate to the pros and cons of the candidates. The back-and-forth could (and has) gone on endlessly. People on each side are called stupid, ignorant, and a whole slew of other names just for preferring 'their' candidate. That's really sad, in my opinion. There are people that are trying to learn whose stances best match their own, if either. My mind changes often as I learn more things. I assign my own weight. I don't give a crap what Trump's wife said in a speech any more than I care who Clinton's husband boinked while in office. That does matter to some people, but in the end I get my own vote and they get theirs. The one with the most votes (well, kind of, but that's another issue) wins and will be our next President! Some people will be overjoyed, some destroyed, but we will all suck it up and make it through the next four years liking it or not. What does make me sad is that there is so much hatred and it is on BOTH sides. When we are disrespecting each other as human beings over a political opinion, we need to remember that we are all just trying to get through the day, love our families, find some joy in life and be healthy. Next time I feel like posting something snarky, I am going to pretend there is an invisible referee blowing a huge whistle and remember that I think all of you women are pretty awesome in your own ways. How can we ever wish for world peace when we can't even co-exist respectfully on an Internet message board? I'm thankful for those of you who have helped me learn this election season by answering my questions about even the most basic aspects of it. I've learned a lot with your help and I hope to continue! I feel the same way. Even though I'm concerned about one of the candidates being elected, it doesn't matter to me which party that candidate is affiliated with, and it's because I don't agree with their ethics, not the letter before their name.
We are all Humans first. We are all Americans. Aren't we supposed to be in this together?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 25, 2016 22:24:56 GMT
I didn't remember that. That's disturbing if it's true. It seemed like he was a real lady's man and could get anyone he wanted, without pressure, rape, assault, etc.......... I'd wonder why Broaddrick didn't report it as a sexual assault to the police, asap?? I don't recall all of the details of that particular incident though......... Being accused of RAPE, to me, especially if it involves a minor, is very different than sexual assault, although they're all very wrong. Earlier this year, the former president’s sex life came under scrutiny again when it was revealed that Bill had flown with billionaire Jeffery Epstein at least 10 times on the “Lolita Express” — his jet that was used to pick up underage prostitutes. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charges of pedophilia in late 2007. When asked about those trips with the former president, Epstein pleaded the Fifth. I'm remembering an article that said Trump joined them on these trips, but I'm not sure if I can find it quickly. Either way, guilty or not, they should still be ashamed of themselves for even associating with Epstein.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 25, 2016 22:31:23 GMT
I have to say, after watching the part of the convention where the chairman seemed to be blowing off the vote to amend the rules, I've sort of resigned myself to the reality that he could actually win.
I mean, if all of these high-powered political people couldn't stop it from happening, who will?
(and no, I very definitely do NOT want to see him hurt or worse. He's a human just like me. Well except for I'm not orange.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 14:51:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 22:38:01 GMT
Earlier this year, the former president’s sex life came under scrutiny again when it was revealed that Bill had flown with billionaire Jeffery Epstein at least 10 times on the “Lolita Express” — his jet that was used to pick up underage prostitutes. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charges of pedophilia in late 2007. When asked about those trips with the former president, Epstein pleaded the Fifth. I'm remembering an article that said Trump joined them on these trips, but I'm not sure if I can find it quickly. Either way, guilty or not, they should still be ashamed of themselves for even associating with Epstein. I don't know if Trump was involved or not, I never heard that, but I completely agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 25, 2016 22:47:10 GMT
|
|