Why Hillary will obliterate Drumpf.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But then you went on to criticize Trump for particular remarks while, by omission, you mean to suggest that Hildebeest's racially charged faux pas are not stupid.

In your post #39, you brought negativity into the thread by saying Clinton was a "demonstrably incompetent, septuagenarian liar who is being investigated by the FBI." In post #41 I stated that "Trump can be just as bad as Clinton" and gave examples as why I thought that to be the case. Point is neither is a saint. Clinton is being investigated by the FBI. Trump is being sued for Trump University. Neither is pretty for a future President.

BTW, here is the new CNN/ORC poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politi...eral-election/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In your post #39, you brought negativity into the thread by saying Clinton was a "demonstrably incompetent, septuagenarian liar who is being investigated by the FBI." In post #41 I stated that "Trump can be just as bad as Clinton" and gave examples as why I thought that to be the case. Point is neither is a saint. Clinton is being investigated by the FBI. Trump is being sued for Trump University. Neither is pretty for a future President.

BTW, here is the new CNN/ORC poll.

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-general-election/[/url]

However, you were the asinine hypocrite superciliously claiming that your criticism was entirely bi-partisan, when it obviously wasn't, speedy, and, fyi, Hildebeest is still being investigated by the FBI, speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

However, you were the asinine hypocrite superciliously claiming that your criticism was entirely bi-partisan, when it obviously wasn't, speedy, and, fyi, Hildebeest is still being investigated by the FBI, speedy.

Idiot. I criticize Clinton as much as I do Trump. Both suck in my opinion. I will vote for neither. You criticize only Clinton. I criticize both. But I don't go to the extremes that certain others, such as yourself, do because many allegations are either untrue or indefensible.

Yes, Clinton is still being investigated by the FBI I JUST SAID THAT IN MY POST. CAN YOU READ????

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot. I criticize Clinton as much as I do Trump. Both suck in my opinion. I will vote for neither. You criticize only Clinton. I criticize both. But I don't go to the extremes that certain others, such as yourself, do because many allegations are either untrue or indefensible.

Yes, Clinton is still being investigated by the FBI I JUST SAID THAT IN MY POST. CAN YOU READ????

Read the government's statutes and regulations governing the proper care and handling of classified government material, speedy. Hildebeest should be in jail; not on the campaign trail, speedy. People like you, speedy, enable people like Hildebeest.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In your post #39, you brought negativity into the thread by saying Clinton was a "demonstrably incompetent, septuagenarian liar who is being investigated by the FBI." In post #41 I stated that "Trump can be just as bad as Clinton" and gave examples as why I thought that to be the case. Point is neither is a saint. Clinton is being investigated by the FBI. Trump is being sued for Trump University. Neither is pretty for a future President.

BTW, here is the new CNN/ORC poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politi...eral-election/

Americans died and Hillary lied.

Do you have something that serious against Trump?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot. I criticize Clinton as much as I do Trump. Both suck in my opinion. I will vote for neither. You criticize only Clinton. I criticize both. But I don't go to the extremes that certain others, such as yourself, do because many allegations are either untrue or indefensible.

Yes, Clinton is still being investigated by the FBI I JUST SAID THAT IN MY POST. CAN YOU READ????

You've decided to vote for neither.....so how does that faux moral superiority working out for you. Imagine any other decision in life where you have only two choices to accomplish anything and you decide that to be fair you'll invent a third choice.

Do you want chocolate or vanilla? I want strawberry. We don't have strawberry. But I want strawberry. Sorry, that is not one of the choices. Why don't you want me to have any ice cream? I'm not denying you ice cream, I'm just telling you to chose either vanilla or chocolate. I still want strawberry. Mommmmyyyyy.....

Hey, take a look at them. One tall blonde provider and a pixie like black provider. Which one do you want? I want a plump Asian woman. So does everyone but that is not one of the choices. Which one do you want? I want my Asian woman please. Look, I'm going to go get some and you can just sit here I guess. I'll wait for the Asian woman. Suit yourself but lunch will be over in 45 minutes. You never let me have any fun asshole. Daddddyyyyyy.....

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Read the government's statutes and regulations governing the proper care and handling of classified government material, speedy. Hildebeest should be in jail; not on the campaign trail, speedy. People like you, speedy, enable people like Hildebeest.

You just continually validate my opinion that you are, by far, the dumbest person on this forum. Please show me where I said anything about Clinton's guilt or innocence.

I shouldn't have to remind you how the U.S. judicial system works. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I am not passing judgement on her, or Trump's lawsuits for that matter.

Here is one person's opinion that Clinton is not guilty of anything. PLEASE try to remember that this is not MY opinion. If you have a difference of opinion take it up with the author.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analy...ry?id=36626499

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You criticize only Clinton. I criticize both. But I don't go to the extremes that certain others, such as yourself, do because many allegations are either untrue or indefensible.

Ok, which specific allegations against Clinton did you find "either untrue or indefensible"?

And when you say "indefensible" do you mean it is indefensible to make the allegation in the first place? Or she has no credible defense against it?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You've decided to vote for neither.....so how does that faux moral superiority working out for you. Imagine any other decision in life where you have only two choices to accomplish anything and you decide that to be fair you'll invent a third choice.

Do you want chocolate or vanilla? I want strawberry. We don't have strawberry. But I want strawberry. Sorry, that is not one of the choices. Why don't you want me to have any ice cream? I'm not denying you ice cream, I'm just telling you to chose either vanilla or chocolate. I still want strawberry. Mommmmyyyyy.....

Hey, take a look at them. One tall blonde provider and a pixie like black provider. Which one do you want? I want a plump Asian woman. So does everyone but that is not one of the choices. Which one do you want? I want my Asian woman please. Look, I'm going to go get some and you can just sit here I guess. I'll wait for the Asian woman. Suit yourself but lunch will be over in 45 minutes. You never let me have any fun asshole. Daddddyyyyyy.....

You have forgotten that there is a 3rd option which COG can tell you about more than I -- Gary Johnson. Assuming it is Trump v. Clinton v. Johnson, I will vote for Johnson. Before you criticize me for voting for someone who has no chance to win, if you have read the latest CNN poll, more people are voting AGAINST candidates than are voting FOR candidates.

"Asked why they back Clinton or Trump, most of those behind each candidate say their preference in the matchup is more about opposing a candidate than supporting one. Among Clinton supporters, 51% said their choice was mostly about opposing Trump and 57% of Trump supporters said they went with him because they don't want Clinton in the White House."


I'm taking it a step farther and not voting for either Trump or Clinton because I don't want either of them in the White House.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just continually validate my opinion that you are, by far, the dumbest person on this forum. Please show me where I said anything about Clinton's guilt or innocence.

I shouldn't have to remind you how the U.S. judicial system works. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I am not passing judgement on her, or Trump's lawsuits for that matter.

Here is one person's opinion that Clinton is not guilty of anything. PLEASE try to remember that this is not MY opinion. If you have a difference of opinion take it up with the author.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analy...ry?id=36626499

You would be the stupid person in this forum suggesting that consumers suing one of Trump's commercial ventures is an apples to apples comparison with Hildebeest's being personally investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified government material for nefarious reasons, speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, which specific allegations against Clinton did you find "either untrue or indefensible"?

And when you say "indefensible" do you mean it is indefensible to make the allegation in the first place? Or she has no credible defense against it?

One of my Facebook friends is a Hillary-hater who is constantly putting clips on Facebook which are at the very least misleading and at the most completely false.

This one does not tell close to the whole story:

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4a&oe=579C8D0E

This one is simply wrong in many ways. Clinton was appointed by a judge to be the person's lawyer. She did not volunteer. Once on the case, her duty as a lawyer was to try to prove the innocence of her client, which includes using loopholes.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...aa&oe=5799D066

There was another one from earlier this year where the person posted an alleged statement by Clinton that was totally 100% false. I can't find the link.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You would be the stupid person in this forum suggesting that consumers suing one of Trump's commercial ventures is an apples to apples comparison with Hildebeest's being personally investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified government material for nefarious reasons, speedy.

When Clinton is found guilty on any of the charges, get back to me. Until then, she is innocent of all charges.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When Clinton is found guilty on any of the charges, get back to me. Until then, she is innocent of all charges.

Just like OJ was innocent of all charges, right, speedy? Intelligent people understand setting up a server to avoid the requirements of the FOIA is a nefarious circumvention of public law, speedy. Intelligent people know that having classified material stored at home on an unsecured server is a violation of government rules and regulations, speedy. Intelligent people know that anyone arguing that Hildebeest didn't "knowingly send, receive and store" classified material on an unsecured server is an outright lie, speedy, since she, in fact, knowingly set up the server for nefarious reasons in the first place. Odumbo has already demonstrated that he picks and chooses which laws he will enforce, speedy; so, you can just keep your head up his ass until you drown on his shit.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One of my Facebook friends is a Hillary-hater who is constantly putting clips on Facebook which are at the very least misleading and at the most completely false.

This one does not tell close to the whole story:

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4a&oe=579C8D0E

This one is simply wrong in many ways. Clinton was appointed by a judge to be the person's lawyer. She did not volunteer. Once on the case, her duty as a lawyer was to try to prove the innocence of her client, which includes using loopholes.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...aa&oe=5799D066

There was another one from earlier this year where the person posted an alleged statement by Clinton that was totally 100% false. I can't find the link.

That's it? That's all you got? No link (or even the most sketchy of details) to a statement that you claim was 100% false, but links to two episodes that you admit are LESS than 100% false?

It appears there was at least a mini-scandal about what the Clintons took (or tried to take) with them when they left the White House back in 2001, wasn't there?

And there surely exists an actual video interview where Hillary admitted in a laughing manner that she defended a child rapist and won, right?

Perhaps both stories were embellished and distorted somewhat by her political enemies, but there certainly appears to be enough factual substance there to make the average American recoil in disgust.

And of course, you don't even question the dozens of other serious allegations against her, except to say you don't want to talk about them unless she is found guilty of something.

And you pretend to be even-handed in evaluating Trump versus Hillary?

[The_Waco_Kid]

from the moment Trump announced his bid, every pundit said he had no possible chance to get the nomination. well .. now he has it. they were all wrong. and assup the pig thinks some hack on cnbc knows absolutely Clinton will win easily now, before any debates, any campaigning? ahahahaha