Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

Status
Not open for further replies.
So which story are you going with?

Good point, only a politician would know to say, "Obviously I've not made a sacrifice that would hold a candle to Capt, Khan's."

And you call me a dumbass. :rolleyes:

I pay close attention to what I hear Trump say. I don't pretend to hear every word he says. See if you can figure out what that means.
 
I never voted for the Iraq War.

;)

I voted to threaten them with a war...

But by all means, between the two of them, let us focus on Trump's meandering statements on Putin rather than a finely crafted, scripted and deceptive lie meant to hide that fact that Mrs. Clinton is a neo-con who will take the chance of antagonizing Putin during the elections by blaming him for her lack of security without having any real proof.

WOW! Did you see that???

TRUMP eats KFC with a knife and fork!

Talk about being out of touch with the average voter...
 
It's weird to think that the guy that was feuding with Rosie O'Donnell is now going to debate Hillary Clinton.
 
With the way the Electoral College is set up this time around, I don't think Trump has any chance whatsoever of being elected - but I think it would be four years of funny if he were.

When he has to put all his assets in a blind trust - funny!

When Mexico tells him they aren't going to build a wall - funny!

When he issues a global edict and the rest of the world ignores him - funny!

When he tries to tell Congress what to do - funny!


The fact of the matter is, the President has a bully-pulpit but not much power. And there's nothing funnier than Trump on a bully-pulpit.

Clinton is probably going to win. I hope she doesn't, but the odds are in her favor, obviously. But I'm a gambler by nature, so I'm not counting Trump out, just yet. Longshots do win, occasionally.
 
I never voted for the Iraq War.

;)

I voted to threaten them with a war...

But by all means, between the two of them, let us focus on Trump's meandering statements on Putin rather than a finely crafted, scripted and deceptive lie meant to hide that fact that Mrs. Clinton is a neo-con who will take the chance of antagonizing Putin during the elections by blaming him for her lack of security without having any real proof.

WOW! Did you see that???

TRUMP eats KFC with a knife and fork!

Talk about being out of touch with the average voter...

What do you care, you're voting for Johnson.:rolleyes:
 
Just watched Buffett tear three new assholes for Donald. Things are heating up.
 
...

New revelations from Peter Schweizer, the author of the meticulously documented book "Clinton Cash," and Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart, show that Hillary's campaign Chairman John Podesta "sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund."

Making things worse, Podesta never fully disclosed the relationship, as the law requires. But of greater concern than Podesta is what it says about Clinton's strange and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia that led to Clinton lending a hand in helping Vladimir Putin build Skolkovo, a high-tech community meant to be "the Russian equivalent of America's Silicon Valley."

This is not some sort of free-enterprise experiment. As the authors detail in a study published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 30,000 workers toiled in the state-of-the-art tech hub "under strict governmental control." While Clinton was in charge at the State Department, the U.S. recruited a bunch of U.S. high-tech powerhouses -- including Google, Cisco and Intel -- to take part in the project. Of the 28 companies from the U.S., Europe and Russia that took part, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or paid for Bill Clinton to give speeches.

It's yet another stunning example of the Clinton Foundation's growing list of conflicts of interest, suggesting that Hillary used the State Department's offices to line her family's pockets through the Clinton Foundation. Don't forget that, with her email carelessness on her home-brew server during her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary has already exposed the United States' most secret information to the Russian government....

This was no accident. Nor was it innocent. FBI Assistant Special Agent Lucia Ziobro in 2014 sent a letter to several U.S. corporate participants in the project warning: "The (Skolkovo) foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation's sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application."

...

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...ndal-russia-and-her-reset-pal-vladimir-putin/



Let us not forget, even as she harps on seeing The Donald's business records, that when the tax statements for the Foundation came out, they had as many holes and omissions in them as her email server (not to mention that she got rich giving speeches that no one is allowed to read).
 
I pay close attention to what I hear Trump say. I don't pretend to hear every word he says. See if you can figure out what that means.
And yet you're not interested enough to do a simple google about what he's said.

Your ignoring the reply to your contention that only a politician knows how to reply to a question about personal sacrifice hasn't gone unnoticed either.
That may be one of the dumbest positions you've taken on the GB.
 
Just watched Buffett tear three new assholes for Donald. Things are heating up.

It's nice to see the Crony Capitalists (the .01%) rushing in to Hillary's rescue in order to get favorable (tax) treatment in the future from the Democrat Party...

That's what The Donald openly admits that he used to do, bribe people like the Clintons.
 
Give Hillary Clinton this much: She’s absolutely fearless about lying on national television.

On Fox News Sunday, she again claimed she did nothing wrong in relying on that home-brewed email server, and never sent or received classified material. Then she declared that FBI Director James Comey has confirmed her statements on the matter as truthful.

When Chris Wallace noted that Comey said just the reverse, she countered: “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.”

Her aides later “clarified” that she was citing Comey’s statement that she hadn’t lied to the FBI. But the bureau chief’s on record saying her repeated public claims are false:

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails . . . Was that true?” asked Rep. Trey Gowdy at one hearing. “That’s not true,” Comey replied.

...

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/hillary-cant-stop-lying-even-when-she-doesnt-have-to/

B-b-b-but Trump said he knew/didn't know Putin.
 
And yet you're not interested enough to do a simple google about what he's said.

Your ignoring the reply to your contention that only a politician knows how to reply to a question about personal sacrifice hasn't gone unnoticed either.
That may be one of the dumbest positions you've taken on the GB.

Why would I google what he said when I don't disagree with what he said? I find his answer, the one that's been widely reported and discussed here, to be no problem.

You are one dense motherfucker. I didn't say only a politician would know how to answer that question about sacrifice better than Trump.
 
So you're leaning towards Tammany Hall and the Chicago way?

We'll accept criminality if the façade is in a $30,000 pantsuit and says outrageous things with a calm steeliness that could be interpreted as serious competence despite a well-documnted career of bad decisions and poor choices?
 
A good politician, meaning a good liar, would run rings around either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The American public can't get enough of a politician who is a good liar.
 
So you're leaning towards Tammany Hall and the Chicago way?

We'll accept criminality if the façade is in a $30,000 pantsuit and says outrageous things with a calm steeliness that could be interpreted as serious competence despite a well-documnted career of bad decisions and poor choices?

Or a narcissistic, juvenile, bigoted, paranoid, spoiled, deceptive, anti-Semitic buffoon who has little regard for truth, honor, and common decency? Yeah, I'll take the pantsuit. You should at least have the balls to vote for him if you're going to defend him all over the place. But we know, you're not a Republican.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top