POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
He's not worse than Hillary. Not even close. She's the worst presidential candidate in recent history.
Clinton needs to be POTUS to avoid being prosecuted for multiple felonies. Or so she can pardon herself (if that's legal. Or I guess even if it isn't, who's going to question her).
That puts a very large gap between her and a guy who is a pompous ass and has no actual positions or stated ideas. At least for him, running for POTUS isn't about avoiding jail time.
That puts a very large gap between her and a guy who is a pompous ass and has no actual positions or stated ideas. At least for him, running for POTUS isn't about avoiding jail time.
with all the scandals and lawsuits Trump has already been involved with as a civilian, would it be a shock that he is involved in multiple once he's POTUS?
he and Clinton are two birds of a feather: pathological liars who will say anything to gain power and then do anything, legal or illegal, to keep their power
with a list of lawsuits, counter lawsuits, fines, and legal settlements that would make even a Clinton blush.
Yes. And one of them is currently under investigation (in what would likely be a slam dunk case if pursued - which it won't be) for committing various felonies.
So yeah, becoming POTUS to avoid jail time puts a pretty large gap between you and each candidate who's freedom and other rights doesn't actually rely on becoming POTUS.
But Trump's not:
An accomplice to murder.
Or a treasonous citizen and public official.
Or guilty of having a career on the public dime without ever accomplishing anything.
Granted, the lies probably offset each other.
meanwhile every other Sec of State used private email for public business(specifically Republicans Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice). Not a peep from the Republicans. But it's a Clinton so we're gonna go all witch hunt on this. Couldn't get any traction on Benghazi after millions of wasted taxpayer dollars used to try to bring down her poll numbers.
If Republicans hadn't been trying to get to the Clintons since the 90s maybe someone would take this seriously. But you can only cry wolf so many times for you are no longer taken seriously.
Especially when the Republican Secretary of States did the exact.same.thing.
Hillary's collar getting tighter still.
"That things have gotten this far in the investigation indicates that FBI director James Comey is moving inexorably toward recommending to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that Hillary be indicted."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-human-abedin-testify-hillary-clinton/2016/03/22/id/720362/
"That things have gotten this far in the investigation indicates that FBI director James Comey is moving inexorably toward recommending to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that Hillary be indicted."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-human-abedin-testify-hillary-clinton/2016/03/22/id/720362/
Did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell break the law? If so they should be prosecuted like David Petraeus was.
What exactly did they do? And could you tell us what exactly it is you think Clinton did?
This is a little old, but it sheds light on Hillary's actions.
http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/...llarys-criminal-wrongdoing-in-server-scandal/
http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/...llarys-criminal-wrongdoing-in-server-scandal/
How do you figure? Everything he is known for can be undone on day 1 of the next presidents tenure. Couple that with his time spent fighting race wars and on vacation and if say he is in fact irrelevant.
as always, a weekly reminder that there is no way possible Obama or his justice dept will indict Hillary. Lynch wants to stay as AG. Obama doesnt want his paper thin accomplishments shredded in weeks. Huma would go to jail & be waterboarded daily if it kept Hillary from being indicted, same for everyone else around her.
Her being beat will have be fair & square at the ballot box.
The toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube in regard to his foreign policy.
Hillary has been under investigation for one thing or the next for the better part of 2 decades. From whitewater, to Benghazi, to the potentially treasonous email server.
Cant think of anyone who tops that. No, not even one who is involved in a multitude of civil lawsuits and routinely says crazy things.
Exactly. Petraeus had his life ruined for 1 email to his mistress. Apply the same justice to Hillary.
You can argue who is worse, Hillary or Trump, all day. Bottomline, the Dems as whole really don't have a line a candidate can cross to lose their support to any real degree. Just look at the data trends.
IMO, HRC's worst action is not even one of the legal issues...her intermingling SoS business with the Clinton Foundation was far more unethical.
Trump also hasn't had the chance to cause the same types of scandals in which Hillary has been involved. His scandals are, sadly, limited to the private sector
He has, however, been involved with everything from housing discrimination to employment discrimination to fraud to breaking campaign finance laws. And if you wanna drag in circumstantial evidence about the Clintons and murder, you can also drag in circumstantial evidence linking Trump and organized crime while you're at it.
All of that is ignoring the litany of frivolous lawsuits against everyone from journalists to tenants, which were assuredly used as intimidation and coercion.
Again, ZERO evidence that a Trump administration would be any less corrupt than a Hillary one.
Trump also hasn't had the chance to cause the same types of scandals in which Hillary has been involved. His scandals are, sadly, limited to the private sector
He has, however, been involved with everything from housing discrimination to employment discrimination to fraud to breaking campaign finance laws. And if you wanna drag in circumstantial evidence about the Clintons and murder, you can also drag in circumstantial evidence linking Trump and organized crime while you're at it.
All of that is ignoring the litany of frivolous lawsuits against everyone from journalists to tenants, which were assuredly used as intimidation and coercion.
Again, ZERO evidence that a Trump administration would be any less corrupt than a Hillary one.
Youre comparing Trumps potential for corruption versus Clinton's already proven corruption and criminality? And the best argument you have is "Trump hasnt had as much time to be corrupt yet"?
Yes. He has quite the Corruption Resume for never having held elected office.
And notice I'm not saying Clinton is better in any way, shape, or form from the corruption aspect. I'm saying there's no evidence that Trump would be better.
The media will be there every step of the way to skewer Trump for anything. Clinton will get the Obama treatment.
So yeah, a Trump administration would be less corrupt than Clinton by necessity.
Fair point, although Salon, et al might start to warm up to him once he starts promoting Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club during the general and appointing numerous liberal judges in February.
Still comparing an already proven corrupt Clinton to a potentially corrupt Trump. Terrible argument.
Hillary killed Vince Foster. That makes it a hate crime.
It's well known that Foster was killed to cover-up Hillary's affair with him.
http://radaronline.com/photos/hilla...ntic-getaways-sex-tape-reports/photo/1235640/
Look, I know it's been widely-accepted, common wisdom for 20+ years that nobody can hold a candle to a Clinton, but you don't think it's possible that Trump, a longtime friend of theirs, might maybe possibly potentially be at least as corrupt? And that the evidence points that way? And that if/when he does turn out to be exactly that, you don't think people will look back and say "how could we have possibly been that naive?"
I'm not sure anyone has argued that there isn't potential for corruption with Trump....very obviously there is.
I honestly don't know what your argument is here, jamo. It feels like you're essentially downplaying Hillary's actual, real corruption based on hypothetical Trump public office corruption, i.e. the public should look at both as equal as a deciding factor.
I honestly don't know what your argument is here, jamo. It feels like you're essentially downplaying Hillary's actual, real corruption based on hypothetical Trump public office corruption, i.e. the public should look at both as equal as a deciding factor.
A lot of the Hillary supporters I interact with have very little knowledge of her past dealings and they turn a blind eye to the shit they are aware of. It's baffling the amount of unwavering support she gets.
I'm saying that "Trump hasn't abused his power as SoS" is about as absurd as saying "Hillary hasn't been prosecuted for housing and employment discrimination".
Proven? Has she ever been indicted or convicted of any crime?
Good God! You folks slam "the media" over convicting the Duke LAX in the court of public opinion yet you accept as fact every rumor and innuendo made about HRC.
Where there is smoke there may be fire but accusations do not equate to proof.
Similar threads
