Why I'm supporting Donald

[cpwill]

Hillary is a whole lot worst! People involved in some of her scandals seem to be dying around her!

The latest:


BREAKING: Clinton Witness Dies of "Heart Attack," Then Chilling REAL Cause Comes Out


https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4pxh7d/un_official_found_dead_of_barbell_falling_on_his/



She's bad luck! [emoji38]


And....

What about the women she harassed? She paints herself as the champion of women....yet she harrassed women who complained about her husband's sexual assault!

What about Benghazi? The lies? The emails?

Whattaboutism isn't any better today than when the apologists for Communism did it during the Cold War.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Dittohead not!]

I always laugh when someone claims that they know exactly who Donald Trump is personally. Your comment that he is a con man and a fraud is based on your opinion - not on fact. Articles can be brought up to prove almost anyone's point. The OP actually expressed from their beliefs, why they liked Trump.

I agree with much of what they said as being similar reasons why he will get my vote. But there is one other BIG reason why he will get my vote. Let me say why:

Yes, he does not speak in a polished political manner. He says things off the cuff and things that can be taken the wrong way. I get that. He's not used to the media turning on him like they have during this campaign. He's new to this arena so for me, for many, his approach is refreshing. He tells it like it is and he's not afraid of what group A, B, C, D, E..... is going to say. Yeah for him. Many of us are sick and tired of the polished bureaucrat who says one thing and then does something else.

People need to look at the real truth behind the money Hillary is bringing in during the foundation and the campaign. She has so much money coming from overseas, from big business etc. You can't look the other way and pretend that this money doesn't have any barring on what she does following an election. For goodness sakes, it was just reported that she gave a job to a person who donated a $million dollars to the Foundation, based on her power as Secretary. This person was totally unqualified for the position. But I guess someone, somewhere will have a reasonable explanation for it. And, people have and continue to die around her and Bill Clinton when in office - mysterious deaths. But I guess someone, somewhere will have a reasonable explanation for it. Emails disappeared, servers were cleaned, lies about lies were recorded, four people were killed in Benghazi and the families were called liars. Millions of dollars for speeches earned. And even as early as this week, the father of the Orlando mass murdering terrorist shows up behind her in direct camera view to support her election for President. The same guy who claims to be some President or something other in Iran. OK, I guess someone, somewhere will have a reasonable explanation for it.

And you want us to believe that Donald Trump is the con man and fraud? Somewhere, someone is not really seeing the forest for the trees.

Yes, conman and fraud, PT Barnum reincarnated and running for president. He's liable to do or say just about anything.

I suppose he could even claim to be able to get the influence of money and power our of politics, since he is "not a politician."

The best we can hope for if, by some fluke or other, he does get elected president is that his supporters are correct in saying that he really doesn't mean the things he says.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you're allowed to sue....you can sue!

Threatening to sue, is not a crime.


Btw.....

You're the ones who seem to have your knickers tied in a knot over his shenanigans.....and he's the
one who's thin-skinned?"

You're not the ones being sued! :lol:
You take everything so seriously! You guys seem to be so easily offended! Overly sensitive. :lamo

It costs a lot of money to sue, and the guy with the most money has the best chance of winning. Would you go up against the Trump empire?

 

[tosca1]

It costs a lot of money to sue, and the guy with the most money has the best chance of winning. Would you go up against the Trump empire?

It's not Trump.......it's the system!

If he's allowed to sue.....he can sue!


Furthermore.......

....... if you're worth billions, you're more likely to get sued for just about anything, on the chances that just to avoid the hassles and the headaches, you'll find it simpler to settle out of court since you can easily afford it!

There are lawyers who'd only be willing to go long with the lawsuit - and you don't pay if you don't win. They're in it for the windfall! In this scenario, there's nothing to lose for the one who's suing.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

Another CRITICAL reason to support Trump over Clinton

Recent article in Forbes....

Hillary WILL INDEED attempt to rescind or nullify the 2nd Amendment through the Supreme Court. She is already on record having said so.
However, in an attempt not to lose support, her campaign is doing everything possible to cover the fact and keep it quiet for now.

Make no mistake. No matter what the naysayers would like you to believe, a Hillary presidency will see unprecedented damage to the Constitutional rights of Americans. Especially the 2nd Amendment.

And those she selects for her cabinet and prominent government positions will be MORE THAN HAPPY to attempt to enforce those un-Constitutional edicts from the throne.

Forbes - Hillary will attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment

 

[Kobie]

Another CRITICAL reason to support Trump over Clinton

Recent article in Forbes....

Hillary WILL INDEED attempt to rescind or nullify the 2nd Amendment through the Supreme Court. She is already on record having said so.
However, in an attempt not to lose support, her campaign is doing everything possible to cover the fact and keep it quiet for now.

Make no mistake. No matter what the naysayers would like you to believe, a Hillary presidency will see unprecedented damage to the Constitutional rights of Americans. Especially the 2nd Amendment.

And those she selects for her cabinet and prominent government positions will be MORE THAN HAPPY to attempt to enforce those un-Constitutional edicts from the throne.

Forbes - Hillary will attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment

1. For starters, Forbes will pretty much publish or host anything with little to no editorial oversight. Here's the bio of Frank Miniter, the contributor who supplied the article:

I am a bestselling author and a freelance journalist who concentrates on man’s struggle to keep the state in balance with the American dream. My latest book is The Future of the Gun. I am also the author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. My website is www.frankminiter.com. I am a former senior editor at Outdoor Life and a former executive editor for American Hunter (an NRA magazine). I still write for the NRA's publications and I am a "field editor" for American Hunter. This is a purely gratuitous title, but one I'm proud of, as I am a life member of the NRA. I mention all this because Media Matters has been saying I'm secretly an "NRA employee" to attack my credibility on the gun issues. When they can't handle the facts they attack the messenger.

Just in case anyone thought "Ooooh, Forbes!"

2. Well, no, nowhere in the article does it say Clinton vowed to rescind the second Amendment -- only that she disagreed with Heller and (the author only posits) McDonald. Everything else in that op-ed piece is hypothetical or supposition.

 

[Kobie]

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4pxh7d/un_official_found_dead_of_barbell_falling_on_his/

She's bad luck! :lol:

Reddit? Seriously?

 

[calamity]

Reddit? Seriously?

Gotta remember what you're dealing with.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/trump-vs-clinton-how-to-spot-the-lies-commentary.html

The latest study by fact-checking group PolitiFact found that 27 percent of Hillary Clinton's statements were mostly or completely, pants-on-fire false, compared with 70 percent of Trump's.

After all, most of the Trump supporters will swear the opposite is true. :shrug:

 

[calamity]

I believe it can honestly be said, if you think what Donald Trump says makes sense, you probably are not smarter than a fifth grader.

 

[tosca1]

Gotta remember what you're dealing with.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/trump-vs-clinton-how-to-spot-the-lies-commentary.html

After all, most of the Trump supporters will swear the opposite is true. :shrug:

Gotta remember what you're dealing with.

Too much anti-Trump “op,” not enough Trump policy “ed”—as in edification.
That’s my big beef with some of the most prestigious newspapers in the world during this critical presidential election season.

Then, of course, there is the once unassailable Washington Post and its increasingly frequent anti-Trump diatribes.
Exhibit A-plus is the shrill May 31 screed from David Ignatius propagating the Alice in Clintonland fiction that a “mercantilist” Trump “would cut deals” with Chinese President Xi Jinping “without worrying about human rights” and “put commercial interests above everything else.”

On the face of it, this is just too funny. This is because the only presidential candidate with a proven track record for selling human rights down the Shanghai River is Hillary Clinton. In February 2009, the newly minted Secretary of State stunned human-rights activists by unilaterally surrendering on the hat trick of human rights, Tibet, and Taiwan.

The Media's Visceral Bias Against Trump | The National Interest

MSNBC hosts confront David Brock on pro-Clinton bias

David Brock, one of Hillary Clinton's most prominent defenders and founder of the liberal Media Matters, admitted on Tuesday that he has not read a new book on Clinton that he and his organization have been highly critical of.

"How can you push back [against the book]?" asked MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski. "The book's not out yet."

MSNBC hosts confront David Brock on pro-Clinton bias | Washington Examiner



After all, most of the Hillary supporters will swear the opposite is true. :shrug:

 

[calamity]

Gotta remember what you're dealing with.




The Media's Visceral Bias Against Trump | The National Interest



MSNBC hosts confront David Brock on pro-Clinton bias | Washington Examiner



After all, most of the Hillary supporters will swear the opposite is true. :shrug:

Hillary pants on fire lies: 27%
Trump pants on fire lies: 70%

Those numbers tell the story. And, it's obvious when you listen to both speak while doing Google searches on each claim.

The other thing that is obvious. Hillary speaks in paragraphs; Trump, in short bursts of half-sentences. I guess they are both appealing to their audience's level of intelligence.

 

[tosca1]

Hillary pants on fire lies: 27%
Trump pants on fire lies: 70%

Those numbers tell the story. And, it's obvious when you listen to both speak while doing Google searches on each claim.

The other thing that is obvious. Hillary speaks in paragraphs; Trump, in short bursts of half-sentences. I guess they are both appealing to their audience's level of intelligence.

Petty, or important things?

Benghazi, as an example, isn't a petty lie.

You're a Hillary supporter. :shrug:

 

[haymarket]

Now if somebody said they were voting for Donald Trump because they wanted to weaken and possibly destroy the USA and harm its people - that would make sense. Outside of that, its difficult how any thinking person could make a case for such an action.

 

[calamity]

Petty, or important things?

Benghazi, as an example, isn't a petty lie.

You're a Hillary supporter. :shrug:

Benghazi--petty.

Iraq War--not petty.

Why did not the GOP investigate 5,000 Americans needlessly killed in Iraq like they do the 4 killed in Benghazi? No need to answer, I know the real reason. Partisan bull****.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1. For starters, Forbes will pretty much publish or host anything with little to no editorial oversight. Here's the bio of Frank Miniter, the contributor who supplied the article:



Just in case anyone thought "Ooooh, Forbes!"

2. Well, no, nowhere in the article does it say Clinton vowed to rescind the second Amendment -- only that she disagreed with Heller and (the author only posits) McDonald. Everything else in that op-ed piece is hypothetical or supposition.

It took you two paragraphs to explain that.

On the other hand, the meme can be expressed in just a few words:

Hillary wants to rescend the Second Amendment!

Or, better yet, shrunk to bumper sticker size:

Hillary anti gun!

So, which one is most likely to get the attention of the voters who are most likely to be fooled by Trump and his fraud, the ones who will read two paragraphs, or the ones who rely on bumper stickers?

 

[tosca1]

Benghazi--petty.

Iraq War--not petty.

Why did not the GOP investigate 5,000 Americans needlessly killed in Iraq like they do the 4 killed in Benghazi? No need to answer, I know the real reason. Partisan bull****.

Media, Calamity. We're talking about the media.

Furthermore, it's about 4 Americans that were deliberately left to die, and the lies that Hillary spewed about Benghazi.

The media never made anything about Bill Clinton meeting up with the AG just before Hillary was interviewed, and cleared by the FBI. All are major stuffs!

Of course, you're a Hillary supporter. :shrug: