Welpee wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to...

He made it clear, hol.

Change from so-called "political correctness." Read the full CNN piece.

Trump would be a symbolic victory against the changing tide happening in our culture people who express sexist and racist things can not longer say them without being called sexist and racist.

Trump is a change away from smarty-pants, college educated liberals who think they know better.

To bring it back to sports. Watch Curt Shilling's obvious frustration when a FOX Business host who apparently shares his views about Clinton pushes back against the inappropriate comments charge. His agitation that everyone doesn't make the same conclusion he does it palpable.

Then listen to him meltdown on radio today.

http://media.weei.com/a/117082853/k-c-unhinged-schilling-attacks-john-tomase-10-14-16.htm

Listen to the context of his words. It's ALL about bitter resentment over the 'elite' and cultural 'correctness'.

This is Trump's entire candidacy in a nutshell.

Yeah...You are right..Political corrrectness is a big deal to them..The country have moved on..They are not having it...

So Trump supporters think we're better off as a country if people are free to insult and disparage people without consequences?

Yes..

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Bonn. I have a hard time believing Trump just grabbed someone down there without some kind of consent Do you have prove he did? Let's get real. Women who talk about sexism are the biggest hypocrite BSers.

Briggs, you're getting dangerously close (and may have crossed the line with that last comment) to denying that sexual assault, rape and sexism actually exist.

Is this really your position?

Your defense is devolved into Trump LIED about things he did. That's the best case scenario. That for some reason Trump thought there was some upside to lying about ... in your words ... "just grabbing someone down there without some kind of consent."

I'm game. Let's assume for a sec he was lying about that.

Why on earth would any human being lie about that?

Why did he want Billy Bush to think he did those things?

The ONLY two outcomes of this matter are 1.) He did those things. 2.) In his 59-year old mind, lying about doing those things was a good idea to him.

Which of these only two explanations do you prefer?

... and the disgusting outrageous elitist media is the biggest baddest human disgrace

Once again, demonstration that this isn't about Trump, this is bitter resentment over people being told their judgment sucks.

You say trump is "narcissistic obnoxious braggart" but the people who are so angry over everything and anything has all the opportunity in the world to select a candidate that could have defeated Clinton and they blew it. The picked maybe the ONE candidate that could not.

But no, it's everyone else's fault.

My position-- I'm very high on the pssy.

Your position is also your problem.

When you cannot respond to fair, relevant question, you bail on it thinking a defiant, ironic remark is an effective rebuttal and resent the people trying to engage you in a discusion.

You bet the wrong horse. You made maybe the only losing bet there was. And yet you blame "elites" for your own decision.

I never follow the horde. I try to be first in and first out:) Whats wrong with being high on the pssy anyway? We already have an ass thread on the OT--we cant forget about the pssy--I mean thats the epicenter of everything?

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Bonn. I have a hard time believing Trump just grabbed someone down there without some kind of consent Do you have prove he did? Let's get real. Women who talk about sexism are the biggest hypocrite BSers.

Briggs, you're getting dangerously close (and may have crossed the line with that last comment) to denying that sexual assault, rape and sexism actually exist.

Is this really your position?

Your defense is devolved into Trump LIED about things he did. That's the best case scenario. That for some reason Trump thought there was some upside to lying about ... in your words ... "just grabbing someone down there without some kind of consent."

I'm game. Let's assume for a sec he was lying about that.

Why on earth would any human being lie about that?

Why did he want Billy Bush to think he did those things?

The ONLY two outcomes of this matter are 1.) He did those things. 2.) In his 59-year old mind, lying about doing those things was a good idea to him.

Which of these only two explanations do you prefer?

... and the disgusting outrageous elitist media is the biggest baddest human disgrace

Once again, demonstration that this isn't about Trump, this is bitter resentment over people being told their judgment sucks.

You say trump is "narcissistic obnoxious braggart" but the people who are so angry over everything and anything has all the opportunity in the world to select a candidate that could have defeated Clinton and they blew it. The picked maybe the ONE candidate that could not.

But no, it's everyone else's fault.

My position-- I'm very high on the pssy.

Your position is also your problem.

When you cannot respond to fair, relevant question, you bail on it thinking a defiant, ironic remark is an effective rebuttal and resent the people trying to engage you in a discusion.

You bet the wrong horse. You made maybe the only losing bet there was. And yet you blame "elites" for your own decision.

I never follow the horde. I try to be first in and first out:) Whats wrong with being high on the pssy anyway? We already have an ass thread on the OT--we cant forget about the pssy--I mean thats the epicenter of everything?

Could you please stop pretending that you don't know that the issue here is consent.

It's great and everything that you've slapped ass and pulled hair and grabbed *****. Well done. At least, that is, it's great if you had consent to do those things. But Trump's whole point is that he does such things without consent. Which, you know, is quite different.

Your defense of him is that there's no proof he did the things he boasted about doing. But at this point, the choices are: A. He did the things that he said or B. He for some reason likes to lie about grabbing women by the ***** without their consent (and all the women who have come forward are also lying).

So, either you're OK with having a President who assaults women, or you're OK with a President who lies about having done this.

reub wrote:The ***** issue is a bull**** issue. It is being put out there by the combined Hillary/media complex to distract from the real issue which help Trump and from Hillary's total corruption while in government. That's all she has!

Riiiigggght... Because Hillary Clinton starting running for President last Friday rather than last year (not to mention 9 years ago) and didn't have a 4.5 point lead nationally and a distinct electoral college advantage last Thursday.

That's the ticket...

And you mean the sexual assault issue.

Any which way you want to slice it... If you want to choose to be ignorant of the state of the race as of Friday October 7 at 3:59pm et, go wild.

But trump is losing. He's being beaten. That he was a winner was the entire premise of his candidacy.

Trump's losing to the NY times, access Hollywood and People magazine.

And you want him to be President?

Our national security might be at risk if US Weekly decided to take him on.

Chaffetz: New Clinton files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' with FBI

snippet (and note, of course the FBI rejects this.

The head of the House Oversight Committee said Friday that there may be allegations of "quid pro quo" between a top Hillary Clinton aide and an FBI official detailed in newly released documents from the bureau's investigation of Clinton's private email server.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has not reviewed the documents released Friday, he told Fox News, but based on briefings he said "there was an alleged quid pro quo” between the State Department's Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and an FBI official over a classified email.
“In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” Chaffetz said.

"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," said Chaffetz.

He said he was "infuriated" by the news and said there are grounds for at least four congressional hearings on the issue.

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

These are laws that you *think* she has broken but the FBI has cleared her. You realize that in this country a court of law (not some internet poster) determines if an individual has broken the law, right?

She was cleared from the top (Comey) down. There are plenty in the FBI who are pissed regarding Hillary "getting off" (thus far).
And hence the Quid Quo Pro being talked about in the Senate.

And I don't know enough about the laws to really say what she has broken (not at that depth). Those laws being mentioned are from a prior justice department official - I'll trust his judgment until an investigation takes place.

And if she has nothing to hide, a deep and OPEN investigation is in everyones interests.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

So phucking lame

It is lame but it's still worrisome that if/when Hillary takes office in January, tens of millions of Americans will think she belongs in prison. Most of these people can't name what laws they think she's broken and don't understand that you have to be tried and convicted before imprisoned. But we've never had a situation like this where tens of millions of Americans thought from day one that the president belonged in prison. I'm not sure how it's going to affect her presidency and even her safety.

Tens of millions of people thought Obama wasn't a citizen..It's what they do...They think Benghazi was her problem but didn't take a minute to read the details of what actually happened..You can't cater to dog whistle politics...They need to read the issues for themselves and make their own decisions...This forces them to do just that when they continue to lose...

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

These are laws that you *think* she has broken but the FBI has cleared her. You realize that in this country a court of law (not some internet poster) determines if an individual has broken the law, right?

She was cleared from the top (Comey) down. There are plenty in the FBI who are pissed regarding Hillary "getting off" (thus far).
And hence the Quid Quo Pro being talked about in the Senate.

And I don't know enough about the laws to really say what she has broken (not at that depth). Those laws being mentioned are from a prior justice department official - I'll trust his judgment until an investigation takes place.

And if she has nothing to hide, a deep and OPEN investigation is in everyones interests.

Am I mistaken or has investigation not already occurred.

Isn't what you really mean is you didn't like the outcome and just want another one until you get the result you desire?

Why do you trust this "prior justice deptsrtmrnt official's" and not comey's?

Note: none of those questions are about clinton's innocence or guilt.

They are about your motivations.

reub wrote:The ***** issue is a bull**** issue. It is being put out there by the combined Hillary/media complex to distract from the real issue which help Trump and from Hillary's total corruption while in government. That's all she has!