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.
We aren't taking about the Trump foundation though. As far as I'm concerned, Trump has done enough positive work for change by keeping that swamp critter Clinton out of the white house. One Clinton was bad enough, and he brought great shame and embarrassment to this nation. Together, the Clinton's legacy is one of fraud, shame, and the celebration of mediocrity. Instead of trying to build this nation up, they have focused their energies and efforts trying to destroy their opponents and competition. Their disgraceful legacy has been set in stone.
We aren't taking about the Trump foundation though. As far as I'm concerned, Trump has done enough positive work for change by keeping that swamp critter Clinton out of the white house. One Clinton was bad enough, and he brought great shame and embarrassment to this nation. Together, the Clinton's legacy is one of fraud, shame, and the celebration of mediocrity. Instead of trying to build this nation up, they have focused their energies and efforts trying to destroy their opponents and competition. Their disgraceful legacy has been set in stone.
I didn't want Clinton either.
But if you think each of those statements you made doesn't also apply to Trump you've got some soul searching to do.
But if you think each of those statements you made doesn't also apply to Trump you've got some soul searching to do.
I don't vote for people based on the side of their charitable organization. So it's quite irrelevant to me. But this topic is about Clinton's slush fund reporting a loss. It has nothing to do with Trump's charitable organization.
I have to laugh how these Trumpers try to make political hay out of something that Trump has done a thousand times as bad.
I'm sure you'll be able to provide informational facts on how much the Trump charity raised and was found fraudulent on, and how much the Clinton charity raised and how it was spent in comparison.
neither one of them is clean, it seems. is one 30% dirty and the other 50%? Is there a difference? You tell me.
I don't vote for people based on the side of their charitable organization. So it's quite irrelevant to me. But this topic is about Clinton's slush fund reporting a loss. It has nothing to do with Trump's charitable organization.
So, willfully ignorant of the downsides of Trump. Then going to say that Trump has exposed Clinton Foundation fraud when the exact opposite has actually happened, in court.
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.
"orange man bad" 
No, hillary evil.
