Ustrello wrote:
I'd vote for Hillary over a pedophile and scam artist

 Ustrello wrote:
Except that is hasn't unless you have some proof somewhere because I sure as gak can't find any

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump drew widespread rebuke on Saturday with a tweet featuring a Star of David while accusing rival Hillary Clinton of corruption.

The star, a symbol of Judaism, was on a backdrop of $100 bills and paired with a Fox News poll in which a majority of respondents described Clinton as corrupt. Next to Clinton’s face was a red Star of David bearing the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's also not proof he did it.

Trump has many legitimate reasons to be abhorred, championing one which could be completely false is absurd.

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

Asterios wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

thats why the new one in New York is for only $75K, it is a joke plain and simple.

you do realize a lawsuit can be brought against anyone for any reason and proof is not needed. furthermore when the paperwork associated with the suit leads to a vacant lot and an answering machine, its validity is dubious at best.

 Ouze wrote:
I think the chances of him even realizing that was a star of David are pretty slim, at least with the idea it was a subtle jab at Hillary being owned by AIPAC or... whatever. In my opinion, Donald Trump is not subtle and more to the point, he knows his supporters are even less so.

He doesn't blow dogwhistles, he uses an air horn.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

Yes, and this time you're Whembly.

Or will be if you keep this up for a few years...

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

Yes, and this time you're Whembly.

Or will be if you keep this up for a few years...

Great compliment

 Ustrello wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

thats why the new one in New York is for only $75K, it is a joke plain and simple.

you do realize a lawsuit can be brought against anyone for any reason and proof is not needed. furthermore when the paperwork associated with the suit leads to a vacant lot and an answering machine, its validity is dubious at best.

You do realize that the 75k is not part of the main lawsuit correct?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

You love it.

The point is that saying someone is a pedophile because they've been accused of it is pants on head stupid.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

You love it.

The point is that saying someone is a pedophile because they've been accused of it is pants on head stupid.

What about being known to hang with a convicted pedophile who has flown on Lolita express????

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lookup Kjeff Epstein and his Lolita express.... Then look at Bill Clinton and trumps connection...

I'm on vaycay and on the phone...

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lookup Kjeff Epstein and his Lolita express.... Then look at Bill Clinton and trumps connection...

I'm on vaycay and on the phone...

Yes, we can pretty safely assume that Bill Clinton and Trump are very deeply shady people to put it mildly.

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

 Breotan wrote:
I know many of you don't care for Rush Limbaugh but I thought I'd post a link to his transcript regarding how the Clintons are playing us regarding this whole email thing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

Rush goes on to talk about Loretta Lynch, her policies and duties as an administration loyalist, and also previous examples of the Clintons making themselves looking guilty as hell and then having nothing come of it.

Asterios wrote:
if someone brings a civil suit against you for such should we believe it?

Asterios wrote:
evidently the FBI has questioned Hillary over her e-mails:

http://fox40.com/2016/07/02/clinton-interviewed-by-the-fbi-about-private-email-server/

 Spinner wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I know many of you don't care for Rush Limbaugh but I thought I'd post a link to his transcript regarding how the Clintons are playing us regarding this whole email thing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

Rush goes on to talk about Loretta Lynch, her policies and duties as an administration loyalist, and also previous examples of the Clintons making themselves looking guilty as hell and then having nothing come of it.

That seems vastly overcomplicated. If someone wanted to manipulate people's emotions for their own personal gain, wouldn't it be easier to just get a talk radio show?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
if someone brings a civil suit against you for such should we believe it?

That depends, do I have a record of behavior in the past that makes the lawsuit believable, or is it a clear out of nowhere thing? In Trump's case I think the answer here is pretty obvious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
evidently the FBI has questioned Hillary over her e-mails:

http://fox40.com/2016/07/02/clinton-interviewed-by-the-fbi-about-private-email-server/

And? Do you understand the difference between "questioned" and "guilty" or even "likely to be charged"? This kind of stuff is why the only people who care about the email "scandal" are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her no matter what, it's just one "BREAKING NEWS: EMAIL SCANDAL STILL EXISTS AND HAD A MINOR EVENT" post after another.

Asterios wrote:
did I say guilty? or even interrogated? no I said questioned, it was a statement of fact from the Clinton party even.

as to the rape case it is one accuser, unlike Cosby who they are associating it with who had several accusers.

furthermore as usual with the Huffington Post they are making assumptions and such, as it goes doubt it will go anywhere since most legal sites have even said its a joke.

as to Hillary I hope they don't bring charges against her since it will doom her election. as it goes never see anything happening with this as far as charges go. but it will be seen as a corruption of government and that is what will be seen.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
did I say guilty? or even interrogated? no I said questioned, it was a statement of fact from the Clinton party even.

No, but you posting it implies that it's actually a newsworthy event. Unless you want to admit to posting "BREAKING NEWS: A PIECE OF MEANINGLESS PAPERWORK WAS FILED IN THE CLINTON EMAIL 'SCANDAL' TODAY" non-stories just to keep the so-called scandal prominent in discussion?

as to the rape case it is one accuser, unlike Cosby who they are associating it with who had several accusers.

And? Rape is still rape even if you only rape one child instead of several. There are plenty of people in prison who only committed one major felony and didn't have multiple accusers. And "at least Trump is probably not a mass-rapist" is hardly a convincing defense.

furthermore as usual with the Huffington Post they are making assumptions and such, as it goes doubt it will go anywhere since most legal sites have even said its a joke.

Ah yes, the classic "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" response without bothering to explain what unjustified assumptions are being made. I guess we're just supposed to assume that "lol Huffington Post lol liberal media" is all we need to know to dismiss the whole case?

as to Hillary I hope they don't bring charges against her since it will doom her election. as it goes never see anything happening with this as far as charges go. but it will be seen as a corruption of government and that is what will be seen.

The thing you keep missing here is nobody cares about this "scandal". Is there corruption? Possibly. Does anyone with any sense at all believe that this is something unique to Clinton, or even the democrats in general? Of course not. Trump and the republican party are no better, so in a choice between two different corrupt politicians you have to vote based on something other than corruption. This will continue to be a non-story where the only people who really care about it are conservatives who were never going to vote for the democrat no matter what and just want some excuses to press "R" in november. And let's be honest here, if it was a republican candidate with an email scandal in their past those conservatives wouldn't be spending nearly as much time on the story.

Asterios wrote:
problem is the first time the rape civil case was brought against Trump red flags went flying because there was no physical address tied to it

then how it was dropped from several million to $75K, thats a lawyers trick make the settlement cheap enough that it is cheaper to settle then fight it

the fact you think that there is anything to the case is laughable at best

but then again you seem to think I think there is something to the Clinton e-mail gaf, I don't, and for nobody caring about the scandal it sure is front page news all over the place, I can't go a day without hearing something about it on most news agencies, and thats what will kill her, this corruption case will be foremost and in the front of the election.