Trump's 22 SHOTS at HILLARY

[waldo]

The way you respond to posts, seems like you got a bee in your bonnet. There's no need to throw slurs at posters.

no - in your singling out the word "wannabe", you are incorrect... the word is not a slur; rather, it simply means to aspire to something one is not. I suggest you loosen your, as you say, "bonnet"... I suspect you may "bee" affected.

.

We're talking politics, for crying out loud! Some of us are caught up in the excitement for this election. We all know it'll be a very tough walk for Hillary..............it's mind boggling why you make this personal.

again, it's quite, as you say, "mind boggling", that you interpret replies to your posts as a response to some perceived affront you've made/offered. I suggest you quit taking the replies so personal and instead attempt to counter challenges brought to you. Perhaps you're new to the discussion board/forum concept... or something!

.

Anyway, you're missing the whole point. This thread is about any attacks that Trump could possibly use on Hillary. You can scream it's lie all you want - but does your opinion as to whether it's a lie or not, count? If you want to find out, you should contact Trump and voice your outrage at him.

If media are anxious and some are making that doc into an issue - you think Trump, won't?

the point you're continually missing is that your Copy&Paste wizardry doesn't automatically get a free-pass from either return comment, questioning, challenging, repudiating or outright debunking. I am interested, most interested, in your abilities to decipher "scream" within simple textual phrasing - please advise. As for, as you say, "my opinion"... well yes, sometimes you will read just "my opinion"; however, invariably, you will read it as interpreted commentary accompanied by supporting/substantiating reference. Now, I appreciate your posting history shows you have a strong aversion to 'evidence based' statements/claims, but you're just going to have to deal with it - good luck!

.

[waldo]

How can her position be the same as Bush when she wants to overturn Heller?

you quickly show you're out of your element when it gets beyond your talking-point confines. I suggest you first research that Bush Admin argument and it's timing/relationship to that SCOC ruling... if you had that related knowledge already, it would have saved you from this reply of yours. From there I would suggest you read the articles from those 2 'fact-checking' sites I referenced... they should give you an easy appreciation of the distinction between being against a SCOC ruling (and the related why) but not be against repeal of the U.S. 2nd amendment... but not be for "taking guns away from regular ole' Americans". NUANCE... some people so struggle with it!

.

[betsy]

This could backfire on Trump as he was a supporter of the Clinton family. Exposing Hillary could expose him as well.

I don't think that's a secret. If I'm not mistaken, in an interview, I think he mentioned having supported Hillary in the past.

Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

"the perspective I have" - you mean my reinforcing your penchant for perpetuating the fabrications and outright lies from Trump? You mean my continued highlighting your want/desire to attack someone, not for the deeds/actions they've personally done or are responsible for, but for direct/indirect associations to others and the deeds/actions of those others - you know, your/Trump's 'attack by association' routine! Is that the perspective you're speaking to?

.

I appreciate you want to simply throw down your copy&paste gems as legitimate accounts and testaments to just how far the man-baby Trump is prepared to go in his tactics/statements/claims. I recognize you have extreme difficulty in having your wizardry challenged - I get that. What you declare this thread as is fine; your prerogative. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to control replies to your posts. I suggest you quit taking those replies so, as you say, "personal"... it's like you view those replies as an, as you say, "attack on you"... it's, as you say, "clouding your perspective", as you say, "girl"!

.

The copy/paste are sources to back-up any claims I post. Or, to quote the claims straight from the horse's mouth.

That's why it's mind boggling that you make the posts here so personal (lashing out to pro-Trump supporters).

So yeah, your perspective is clouded, you're not thinking straight.

Your responses are juvenile.....just re-read your posts. That's the impression you give about yourself.

It kinda feels like responding to a boy. A man boy.......who's about to get into a hissy fit, too.

Your avatar reminds me of a recent tantrum-throwing in the House......thank God, you can't literally elbow your way among

the anti-Hillaries!

Speaking of man-boy......weren't you quite so active into that thread about Trump? Weren't you having not only a penchant for it, but quite a fest actually! Well, isn't that the evidence that supports my claim?

The pot calling the kettle black. Like the boy who gets caught eating the chocolate cookie - denying he did - but gets caught anyway because of the chocolate crumbs on his face!

We're talking politics, Waldo!

I can bet my bottom beepy that every politician will have to tell a lie at some point.

However, we're talking about a pathological liar which is Hillary Clinton - who can smoothly talk her way out of it just like any sleazy salesman who's caught selling a scam! You should've seen how smooth she dealt with the interview on

Meet The Press.

Remember her "Bring it on" speech? She bragged at how well she outmaneuvered numerous people who wanted to bring her down in the past.

If there's anything that she can use to fire back at Trump's shots at her - it'll have to be on how well she lies.

Since it seems like lying is her second skin - she's likely to be able to skate around the attacks on her. Hands down!

But we'll see how Trump will deal with her slippery eel act! He's most likely prepared for it.

Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

The copy/paste are sources to back-up any claims I post. Or, to quote the claims straight from the horse's mouth.

oh my! Having a source doesn't make what's quoted from that source... legitimate/definitive/representative... accurate! Ya think! If you quote BS from one of your "sources", expect to have it challenged. If you quote BS directly from the man-baby Trump, expect to have it challenged. Again, your Copy&Paste wizardry doesn't automatically get a free-pass from either return comment, questioning, challenging, repudiating or outright debunking. Just how new are you to discussion boards/forums?

.

That's why it's mind boggling that you make the posts here so personal

again, you improperly interpret challenges to your posts as responses to some perceived personal affront you've made/offered. The only personalization here is yours - perhaps you should read back your own posts to appreciate just how personal you're taking challenges to the nonsense/BS you're posting.

.

I can bet my bottom beepy that every politician will have to tell a lie at some point. However, we're talking about a pathological liar which is Hillary Clinton - who can smoothly talk her way out of it just like any sleazy salesman who's caught selling a scam!

when you perpetuate a lie from Trump... does an angel lose its wings? Again, other than being anti-Trump I don't have a favoured alternative (to Trump)... I'm not an American - I "don't have a dog in this hunt"! If you presume to legitimately speak to Hillary Clinton failings... without perpetuating Trump fabrications and outright lies, and they're indefensible failings, well I expect they'll stand on their own. Have you put forward any of those yet? Again, your personal favoured-son, the man-baby Trump, only represents one-side, one view, of a most partisan American divide.

.

But we'll see how Trump will deal with her slippery eel act! He's most likely prepared for it.

there's a reason it's called the "Clinton machine"... and that machine is ramping up. Once Trump turned his targeting directly on Clinton, Trump received an immediate response to that direct attack - an exchange of volleys. The Clinton attack ad was highly professional, pointedly responsive to the received attack, and a complete countering rebuff to Trumps accusations/statements made using his own words and the words of his opponents back against him. Officially, the general election campaign hasn't started yet. Settle in... that Clinton machine is waiting to fire-up big time.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Enough personal comments.

[Shady]

you quickly show you're out of your element when it gets beyond your talking-point confines. I suggest you first research that Bush Admin argument and it's timing/relationship to that SCOC ruling... if you had that related knowledge already, it would have saved you from this reply of yours. From there I would suggest you read the articles from those 2 'fact-checking' sites I referenced... they should give you an easy appreciation of the distinction between being against a SCOC ruling (and the related why) but not be against repeal of the U.S. 2nd amendment... but not be for "taking guns away from regular ole' Americans". NUANCE... some people so struggle with it!

.

I suggest you make yourself more familiar with the Heller ruling. You can't be for overturning that and for the 2nd amendment at the same time.

[waldo]

I suggest you make yourself more familiar with the Heller ruling. You can't be for overturning that and for the 2nd amendment at the same time.

I suggest you don't know what you're talking about; again, clearly you favour gunner talking points! The crux of that SCOC ruling speaks to the interpretation of the U.S. 2nd amendment wording, pointedly the "militia" reference - the "prefatory statement of purpose" (in a 5-4 ruling... with the now dead Justice Scalia having cast the deciding vote). In any review of that ruling, there's no place for your parroted "abolish the U.S. 2nd amendment" talking point; again, it's all about the interpretation of that amendment. Most pointedly, that "Heller ruling" acted to effectively counter a 70-year old case that itself questioned the degree of individual rights within the U.S. 2nd amendment... a case ruling that Justice Scalia referred to "as wrong". Imagine that to-and-fro sway, hey Shady! As I said... NUANCE!

now, if you'd really like to bring this back to a thread focus, I expect you should familiarize yourself with that Heller ruling and properly speak to exactly what Hillary Clinton has stated about it... and what Trump has claimed she has stated or is for. You know, do that, as distinct from repeating, yet again, your parroted gunner/NRA talking points about "abolishing the U.S. 2nd amendment and coming for American's guns". Please proceed Governor!

.

[Shady]

I suggest you don't know what you're talking about; again, clearly you favour gunner talking points! The crux of that SCOC ruling speaks to the interpretation of the U.S. 2nd amendment wording, pointedly the "militia" reference - the "prefatory statement of purpose" (in a 5-4 ruling... with the now dead Justice Scalia having cast the deciding vote). In any review of that ruling, there's no place for your parroted "abolish the U.S. 2nd amendment" talking point; again, it's all about the interpretation of that amendment. Most pointedly, that "Heller ruling" acted to effectively counter a 70-year old case that itself questioned the degree of individual rights within the U.S. 2nd amendment... a case ruling that Justice Scalia referred to "as wrong". Imagine that to-and-fro sway, hey Shady! As I said... NUANCE!

now, if you'd really like to bring this back to a thread focus, I expect you should familiarize yourself with that Heller ruling and properly speak to exactly what Hillary Clinton has stated about it... and what Trump has claimed she has stated or is for. You know, do that, as distinct from repeating, yet again, your parroted gunner/NRA talking points about "abolishing the U.S. 2nd amendment and coming for American's guns". Please proceed Governor!

.

No, I'm sorry but you're incorrect. The crux of the argument is the fundamental right to own a firearm. The Heller case involved a municipality that tried to ban that right. If you're in favour of overturning the Heller decision. Then you're essentially in favour of getting rid of the 2nd amendment. You can keep the Clinton spin all you want. But you're wrong.

[Topaz]

If u are wondering were Trump is getting his info. on the Clintons its from Roger Stone who worked for the Clintons and he been on Alex Jones show telling what it was like working for them and all the activities that the public didn't know about. I know many on here don't think too much of Jones but everything Stone has been saying Trump is using against Clinton right now.

[betsy]

there's a reason it's called the "Clinton machine"... and that machine is ramping up. Once Trump turned his targeting directly on Clinton, Trump received an immediate response to that direct attack - an exchange of volleys. The Clinton attack ad was highly professional, pointedly responsive to the received attack, and a complete countering rebuff to Trumps accusations/statements made using his own words and the words of his opponents back against him. Officially, the general election campaign hasn't started yet. Settle in... that Clinton machine is waiting to fire-up big time.

.

Trump's been hit with massive attack ads - and look where those ads took him.

Hillary is associated with the "establishment." I think her attack ads will just simply bounce off .....UNLESS Trump makes an earthshaking scandal from now til the election.

[waldo]

No, I'm sorry but you're incorrect. The crux of the argument is the fundamental right to own a firearm. The Heller case involved a municipality that tried to ban that right. If you're in favour of overturning the Heller decision. Then you're essentially in favour of getting rid of the 2nd amendment. You can keep the Clinton spin all you want. But you're wrong.

I already suggested you review those 2 fact-checking sites that found Trump is a 'big fat liar'! I also suggested you, properly speak to exactly what Hillary Clinton has stated about it (that "Heller ruling")... and what Trump has claimed she has stated or is for (you know, your parroting of those Trump lies). Of course you won't touch that! You made (parroted Trump) claims concerning Clinton and the U.S. 2nd amendment, yet you refuse to support them. Clinton's statement concerning that ruling is an easy googly... c'mon, step-up Shady!

.

[taxme]

Add these to Trump's arsenal....will Hillary survive?

Detailed explanation:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/#iT3TWLs5FeR504PR.99

I wonder how many will come up at their debates?

It just shows that if you are one of the elite cabals favorite person than you pretty much can get away with anything. They will protect you. he elite owned corporate media will purposely avoid exposing all of your dirty nasty past and deeds if they can. Why else does the lame duck media not report all of those mentioned above? What a field day the media could have. But they won't do it. Now If Donald Trump had a list like that, well we all should know by now that a list like that would become front page news and posted every day by the elite corporate media until election day. Aw well, eh?

[taxme]

Yes, looks like there are other scandals not included in that list.

I can think of the Clintons renting out the Lincoln Room to their fat cat donors. How sleazy is that?

I bet you that Lincoln would be mighty pizzed off if he found out about that, eh? The Clintons are so classless.

Edited May 24, 2016 by taxme

[taxme]

Yes, looks like there are other scandals not included in that list.

I can think of the Clintons renting out the Lincoln Room to their fat cat donors. How sleazy is that?

You mean to tell me that there maybe more "scandals? Shocked.

[taxme]

What could be dug up about Bill Clinton? Here's another list!

Bill Clinton administration controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies

I seriously think Trump's just warming up.

Who knows, he might throw a bombshell revelation about something - smoking gun and all!

I am scared to look.

[Shady]

I already suggested you review those 2 fact-checking sites that found Trump is a 'big fat liar'! I also suggested you, properly speak to exactly what Hillary Clinton has stated about it (that "Heller ruling")... and what Trump has claimed she has stated or is for (you know, your parroting of those Trump lies). Of course you won't touch that! You made (parroted Trump) claims concerning Clinton and the U.S. 2nd amendment, yet you refuse to support them. Clinton's statement concerning that ruling is an easy googly... c'mon, step-up Shady!

.

I guess we can agree to disagree. In my opinion, anyone that wants to see the Heller decision overturned can't be in favour of the second amendment because the Heller decision IS the second amendment.

[GostHacked]

I don't think that's a secret. If I'm not mistaken, in an interview, I think he mentioned having supported Hillary in the past.

So with him have supporting Clinton in the past, how does that maker her better than Trump?

[betsy]

So with him have supporting Clinton in the past, how does that maker her better than Trump?

I don't think she was better than Trump at all.

In an interview (I'm not sure if it's the same one where he was asked about Hillary), he was candid and admitted that he'd made mistakes and did things he regrets....however, he doesn't dwell too much on those.

People who had supported Hiillary were stung by her. Susan Sarandon actually called her a liar on several tv interviews.

Here's one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTL-IL4qZFM

Edited May 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Even Jon Stewart has some very harsh things to say about her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3i5S2pI51Y

Mind you, Jon Stewart isn't exactly a sharp tack, either.

Edited May 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

So with him have supporting Clinton in the past, how does that maker her better than Trump?

I'm confused by your statement.

Edited May 25, 2016 by betsy

[GostHacked]

I'm confused by your statement.

It was a bit confusing, but you seemed to have answered before you were confused. I messed up on the wording.,

The last part should have read like, what would make one think Trump is better than Clinton because he has supported here in the past when it benefited him.

He is not exposing anything most of us have already suspected for years. The game is rigged. And the establishment is getting a bit worried about Trump as being the GOP front runner. But not because he claims to be not in the club, he definitely is part of it.

Could be a whole charade by the powers that be to put Trump in the White House. In other words, we've all been duped again by government.

[betsy]

It was a bit confusing, but you seemed to have answered before you were confused. I messed up on the wording.,

The last part should have read like, what would make one think Trump is better than Clinton because he has supported here in the past when it benefited him.

He is not exposing anything most of us have already suspected for years. The game is rigged. And the establishment is getting a bit worried about Trump as being the GOP front runner. But not because he claims to be not in the club, he definitely is part of it.

Could be a whole charade by the powers that be to put Trump in the White House. In other words, we've all been duped again by government.

You mean Trump could be on the Clinton side all this time? That he's the one made to win?

[GostHacked]

You mean Trump could be on the Clinton side all this time? That he's the one made to win?

The way I see it is that there is no difference between Reps or Dems. It's a nice label that most people can get behind because they go for the brand and not the candidate. If Trump gets it, it is because the power players want him to be POTUS. The average voting American has little influence if any over federal elections.

Call me jaded, but after 8 years, people are still hoping for change. And that hope will continue after Trump serves his term if he gets in. And also I stated on this very board that Obama was gonna be worse than Bush Jr. but in different ways. Trump will be worse as well, but different than Obama or Bush Jr.

However on the flip side, it will be just as catastrophic if Clinton gets in the White House.

I don't know Trump's baggage, but I am well aware of Clinton's extensive list of trash baggage.

[waldo]

I guess we can agree to disagree. In my opinion, anyone that wants to see the Heller decision overturned can't be in favour of the second amendment because the Heller decision IS the second amendment.

uhhh... and before the 2008 'Heller decision'... wasn't there a U.S. 2nd amendment in place? Did I miss something; is this a new U.S. 2nd amendment or the same one from 1791? If it's the same one, are you saying/implying that prior to 2008, it WASN'T the U.S. second amendment? Of course, you won't take up my challenge asking you to speak to exactly what Hillary Clinton has stated... compare that to what Trump has claimed she has stated/is for (your parroting)... and within those Clinton statements, support the Trump claims/your parroting. Of course you won't take that challenge! Instead you weasel out with this "we can agree to disagree". And no, we can't agree - you're wrong... and again, those 2 fact-checking references I provided say Trump (and you, by extension) are big fat liars/distortion arteeests!

.