Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to agree, but it is, what it is...I'm sure glad Trump did win,
If Trump wins, they stand to lose tons of money. None of them care about the middle class, they could give a you know what about what kind of insurance coverage we have....and if they did, why don't they use Obamacare?
No, they don't. They don't stand to lose money, except by way of the recession that Trump's economic plans will put the country in. And going by history, whenever the United States has a big recession or an outright depression, the rich get richer. And the rest of us get poorer.
I am not voting for either candidate for the same reason- ethics. By not closing the Clinton Foundation while SoS she opened herself to a huge perception of a conflict of interest. Not possible to prove or disprove Pay for Play.
Yep.
And Comey should have recused himself re the recommend/not recommend decision given his connection to Clinton Foundation donor Lockheed Martin and his brother's connection to 'Clinton Foundation donor and #5 all time contributor to Hillary over her career' the law firm DLA Piper.
Quote:
Trump, if elected, presents with unprecidented conflicts of interest because he owes $ billions to domestic and foreign banks while his admin is charged with responsibility for regulating those banks
I've heard the figure is between 500 million and 600 million (not billions), but your point is equally valid with either realm of figures.
Quote:
320 million people and we get a Trump/ Hillary ticket is mind boggling.
Yep. That the two major parties didn't do better is mind boggling.
When Bill was president, Hillary assumed authority over a plan to reform health care. It was practically the same idea as ObamaCare. Insurance companies were salivating at the thought.
Her plan was so bad that Democrats not only came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, but they canned it....and “Hillarycare” bill was proclaimed a done deal. And at that time, they told her, Bill's President, not you, so sit down, shut up and act like a first lady!
This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million big ones for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.
Ta da, now we have Nannygate.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannygate
Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."
(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.) I remember it well! Like it was yesterday!
Does anyone remember this? Oh yes, indeedy, Janet Reno was a real champ! Great pick, and Bill Clinton allowed Hillary to chose these unstable people for our leaders? Imagine?
hmmmmmm, I wonder why the media talks nothing about any of these things? Hmmmmmm, not one word???? And yet, all they can come up with is a sex tape against Trump?
You are really revising history to fit your narrative.
In that respect, she's a distant second to the GOP nominee in this race.
At least you're admitting that she is a con artist (and that they both are). Why vote for her then? How can you morally justify voting for her? It can't be that you think your vote could be the decisive one, as you don't live in a swing state....you live in Texas (unless you somehow think Texas is a swing state re this cycle). Why not vote for Johnson, for Stein, or write someone else in that you don't think is a con artist?
My point is, this is why we can and will find audio or video of Trump not talking or behaving presidential, he has never viewed himself as one day being the president.
Trump has not had ambitions of becoming president one day, Hilary has. Unlike Trump, she has spent 30 years creating a false public persona, where she has been careful not to leave any record of her true feelings and opinions subject for public consumption. Hilary "Open Boarders" Clinton, says and acts one way in private, and another way in public, as her recent emails from Wikileaks are starting to show us.
So when we see a video of Trump acting like any other Joe Sixpack off the street, I say so what, he was not the president ten or twenty years ago, and was not intending to pretend he was.
At least you're admitting that she is a con artist (and that they both are). Why vote for her then? How can you morally justify voting for her? It can't be that you think your vote could be the decisive one, as you don't live in a swing state....you live in Texas (unless you somehow think Texas is a swing state re this cycle).
Texas is a swing state in the same sense that NY is, but in the opposite direction.
Quote:
Why not vote for Johnson, for Stein, or write someone else in that you don't think is a con artist?
What makes you think Johnson and Stein aren't con artists?
Texas is a swing state in the same sense that NY is, but in the opposite direction.
A sly non answer answer to my questions, but at least you are admitting that Texas isn't yet a pink or purple state.
Quote:
What makes you think Johnson and Stein aren't con artists?
I included them because they are either on some (Stein) or all (Johnson) ballots and you had yet to label (at least to my knowledge) either of them con artists. I did also include (in my previous post) writing in someone you don't think is a con artist (in case you decided to post something like the above), which you cut out of my quote.
Last edited by RMESMH; 10-11-2016 at 12:14 PM..
Reason: changed one word
My point is, this is why we can and will find audio or video of Trump not talking or behaving presidential, he has never viewed himself as one day being the president.
Trump has not had ambitions of becoming president one day, Hilary has. Unlike Trump, she has spent 30 years creating a false public persona, where she has been careful not to leave any record of her true feelings and opinions subject for public consumption. Hilary "Open Boarders" Clinton, says and acts one way in private, and another way in public, as her recent emails from Wikileaks are starting to show us.
So when we see a video of Trump acting like any other Joe Sixpack off the street, I say so what, he was not the president ten or twenty years ago, and was not intending to pretend he was.
On the red, I think you all are forgetting that Donald Trump toyed with being president in 1987-88. You would think that since he actually has thought about being president, especially due to the fact that he ran and that he has written books which discuss his political leanings/aspirations. He ran in 2000 as the "reform" candidate.
The red really shows IMO that many of you who may be his supporters are not very knowledgeable about Trump.
Isn't that what a State appointed lawyers are supposed do
She was the state appointed lawyer. That's the only part the right-wingers got right. Everything else was fabricated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vote the way you want to. I'll do the same.
A sly non answer answer to my questions, but at least you are admitting that Texas isn't yet a pink or purple state.
