If Only Donny Had More Class Than Tommy Boy

[NJ Stinks]

I get that our resident comedian (Tom) would invite Patricia Smith (the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, who has accused the former secretary of state of "murdering" her son) to be his guest at tomorrow's debate. But one would hope that Trump would have enough class not to invite her. Forget it, Trump and class don't belong in the same sentence.

Trump is out for me. No way do I want to expose anyone here or abroad to this guy's hangups. That leaves Hillary or a 3rd party and I can't believe Hillary when she speaks.

I've got a problem.

[EasyGoer89]

I get that our resident comedian (Tom) would invite Patricia Smith (the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, who has accused the former secretary of state of "murdering" her son) to be his guest at tomorrow's debate. But one would hope that Trump would have enough class not to invite her. Forget it, Trump and class don't belong in the same sentence.

Trump is out for me. No way do I want to expose anyone here or abroad to this guy's hangups. That leaves Hillary or a 3rd party and I can't believe Hillary when she speaks.

I've got a problem.

So, Trump is out for you because he's not 'classy'? You must think Hillary IS classy or else she would be out for you too, no?

[NJ Stinks]

So, Trump is out for you because he's not 'classy'? You must think Hillary IS classy or else she would be out for you too, no?

She's about 98% out. She's only hanging on because there is a D in front of her name.

[Tom]

If he were to invites, it would be her decision to accept or not.
Get rid of that little D you have and start respecting women as beings with brains able to take care of themselves.

You guys had problems with Cindy Sheehan.
If you are still considering Hillary, after she lied to the faces of the victims families, and she has declared there is no longer a problem at the VA, then guess you do have a problem.

Trump is not an easy guy to supports, but when youstrip away all the nonsense of this campaign, he is on the right side of the important stuff.

Make a list of what is important to you, then line by line, write down who best you think will be on your side of that issue. "No vote" if that is what you believe. You know, Trump is on the same side of a lot of democratic issues. But not enough for me to not vote for him.

[JustRalph]

She's a criminal. Vote for a criminal?

Wait until she's in office a year and they link her to the Okeefe video payments.

Impeachment time!

[upthecreek]

She's about 98% out. She's only hanging on because there is a D in front of her name.
What's the D stand for, DECEITFUL?

[reckless]

What's the D stand for, DECEITFUL?

Despicable, too.

[OntheRail]

Despicable, too.

Dishonest...

[mostpost]

I get that our resident comedian (Tom) would invite Patricia Smith (the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, who has accused the former secretary of state of "murdering" her son) to be his guest at tomorrow's debate. But one would hope that Trump would have enough class not to invite her. Forget it, Trump and class don't belong in the same sentence.

Trump is out for me. No way do I want to expose anyone here or abroad to this guy's hangups. That leaves Hillary or a 3rd party and I can't believe Hillary when she speaks.

I've got a problem.
Your choice is between Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or a third party. Since a third party can never win, that is throwing your vote away. So your choice is between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

What do we get if Donald Trump is elected? We get a volatile, irrational man. We get a man who takes offense at every slight, real or imagined. We get a man who can't understand why he isn't allowed to play with nuclear weapons. We get a man who insults other nationalities, other religions and other genders. We get a man who wants to reduce taxes for those who pay relatively the least already. We get a man who started a fake university for the purpose of scamming people. We get a man who refuses to pay his bills.

What do we get if Hillary Clinton is elected? We get a woman who is logical and in control. We get a woman with eight years experience as a United States Senator and four years experience as Secretary of State; plus years of experience in public life. We get a woman who will treat our allies with respect and our enemies with firmness and resolve. We get a woman who can fix Obamacare rather than destroy it. We get a woman who will think long and hard before starting a nuclear conflagration.

Now about those lies you say disturb you so much. Before I can answer that, I need to know where you think she is lying. I know you are not the typical poster here who thinks Hillary Clinton is lying every time her lips move. So, if you could tell me where she might be not telling the truth, I will give my opinion on those times.

[PaceAdvantage]

So, if you could tell me where she might be not telling the truth, I will give my opinion on those times.This is rich. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

We get a man who can't understand why he isn't allowed to play with nuclear weapons.Right, because he doesn't have children and grandchildren (for starters) and would like nothing more than to start a nuclear conflict.

Get a grip man. Stop believing the lies.

And NO president has EVER taken Nukes off the table, so I guess they all want to play with them, right mostpost? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Right, because he doesn't have children and grandchildren (for starters) and would like nothing more than to start a nuclear conflict.

Get a grip man. Stop believing the lies.

And NO president has EVER taken Nukes off the table, so I guess they all want to play with them, right mostpost? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
With one exception, No president has EVER used them. Trump talks as if he would use them at the slightest provocation. A person of such extreme narscicism might do anything to attract attention.

[PaceAdvantage]

Trump talks as if he would use them at the slightest provocation.I don't get that sense at all. Please point me to the quote of Trump's where it is clear he would use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation. If you can do it, I'll vote for Hillary.

[Clocker]

What do we get if Hillary Clinton is elected? We get a woman who is logical and in control. We get a woman with eight years experience as a United States Senator and four years experience as Secretary of State; plus years of experience in public life. We get a woman who will treat our allies with respect and our enemies with firmness and resolve. We get a woman who can fix Obamacare rather than destroy it. We get a woman who will think long and hard before starting a nuclear conflagration.

Logical and in control? Screaming at her security detail for daring to say good morning? Throwing things at her husband for his infidelities, and then attacking the women he sexually harassed? Blaming Benghazi on a video? Claiming CRS (can't remember shite) about all of her violations of national security regulations?

Experience as a Senator and Secy of State? A totally undistinguished career in the Senate, with no achievements other than votes and speeches. Even Hillary could not name an achievement as Secy of State. Asked by Diane Sawyer about her “marquee achievement,” she said,

“I see my role as secretary—in fact leadership in general in a democracy—as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157#ixzz4NYgVgY32



So her marquee achievement in government has been to do the best she could. Actually, I can't argue with that. :p

A woman who can fix Obamacare? She plans to expand coverage to illegals, to expand Medicaid, to open Medicare to people as young as 55, and to have the government offer a public option. All without a plan on how to pay for it. All designed as a migration strategy to single payer. That is a fix?

[Tom]

Trump may or may not use nukes.
Hillary DID poop in the street.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Tom]

We get a woman who will treat our allies with respect and our enemies with firmness and resolve.

By blaming them for hacking emails without a shred of proof?
Yes, that is a good policy - poke the bear.

And we already have seen the mess she cause in the Middle East.

[Clocker]

Now about those lies you say disturb you so much. Before I can answer that, I need to know where you think she is lying. I know you are not the typical poster here who thinks Hillary Clinton is lying every time her lips move. So, if you could tell me where she might be not telling the truth, I will give my opinion on those times.

Your very own favorite little truth teller, Politifact, published a scorecard for Hillary. Of the statements they reviewed, they found 24% to be true and another 27% to be "Mostly True". What a paragon of honesty. :rolleyes:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/)

[Tor Ekman]

How's this for class: The Her Royal Thighness and her rapist husband took tax deductions for the "charitable" donation of their used underwear . . . Stay classy

[mostpost]

Your very own favorite little truth teller, Politifact, published a scorecard for Hillary. Of the statements they reviewed, they found 24% to be true and another 27% to be "Mostly True". What a paragon of honesty. :rolleyes:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/)
That same link has a scorecard for other public figures. How does Hillary compare to them for honesty? There are six categories; three of which indicate you are at least telling some of the truth (True, mostly true and half true), and three which indicate you are more dishonest than honest (False, Mostly False and Pants on Fire.)

72% of Clinton's statements fit in the True category. That is third behind only Tim Kaine (78%) and Barack Obama (75%) 3% are categorized as Pants on Fire.

Donald Trump's numbers are the exact reverse of Clinton's. 28% of his statements are categorized as true. 17% are pants on fire.

The Congressional leadership are pretty closely matched between 50% to 60% True, but Pelosi and Reid have a big advantage on Pants on Fire with 10% and 13% respectively.

The site also publish stats for "Chained e-mails, which is where you guys get most of the garbage you post here. 10% True; 90% false and 59% pants on fire. I rest my case.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=Tor Ekman]How's this for class: The Her Royal Thighness and her rapist husband took tax deductions for the "charitable" donation of their used underwear . . . Stay classy[/QUOTE
Prove that.

[Clocker]

That same link has a scorecard for other public figures. How does Hillary compare to them for honesty?

You said Hillary does not lie. Now you say that Hillary does not lie as much as some others? How proud you must be of your queen, there are bigger liars in the universe.


There are six categories; three of which indicate you are at least telling some of the truth (True, mostly true and half true), and three which indicate you are more dishonest than honest (False, Mostly False and Pants on Fire.)

No, there are two categories, truthful and not truthful. Honesty is a binary quality. You are honest or you are not. And your original claim was that she was in the first category. Now you have turned it around to scoring it like an Olympic sport. How many points for degree of difficulty on her lies?

[Tor Ekman]

How's this for class: The Her Royal Thighness and her rapist husband took tax deductions for the "charitable" donation of their used underwear . . . Stay classy
Prove that.

From your beloved NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/16/us/clinton-taxes-laid-bare-line-by-line.html

:lol:Clinton Taxes Laid Bare, Line by Line By STEPHEN LABATON,

Published: April 16, 1994

WASHINGTON, April 15— It is a rite of spring in Washington for the White House to disclose the First Family's tax returns on this day, and typically the occasion is noted with little fanfare.

But because of the daily barrage of questions in recent weeks about the Clintons' finances, the White House decided today to try to avert any new controversies before they arose.

Sitting around the table in the Roosevelt Room, the President's top lawyers and aides reviewed Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's tax return line by line with reporters. Present for the briefing were two lawyers from the White House counsel's office (including the chief counsel, Lloyd N. Cutler); two lawyers from Williams & Connolly (the firm that represents the Clintons personally); the communications director, Mark D. Gearan, and the staff secretary, John Podesta.

The surprises yielded by the tax return were more trivial than scandalous. They showed, for example, that the Clintons paid $62,670 in Federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of $293,757. The Clintons decided to apply a refund of $7,982 to their 1994 taxes. Television Income

Most of the income was the President's salary ($200,000 annually, but last year only $189,167 because he started on Jan. 20). From their blind trust, the Clintons received gains, interest and dividends of $42,284. Other income included $2,473 for appearances by the President and Mrs. Clinton on the Arsenio Hall Show.

The largest deduction on their tax return was $38,683 for moving expenses that the White House said was paid to United Van Lines.

In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.

A $66 deduction for the personal property tax paid on the Clintons' 1986 Oldsmobile prompted penetrating questions, like where was the car kept (somewhere in Arkansas) and who was driving it (the senior aides said they did not know).

Mr. Gearan also said that the return included $12,000 in income from a privately established fund for First Ladies, which was created around the turn of the century by Henry G. Freeman Jr., whose occupation and story the White House did not know. The fund was supposed to begin making payments to the First Lady in 1989, after Mr. Freeman's last known heir died, but litigation over the estate delayed the payouts until last year. Mr. Gearan said Mrs. Clinton would donate the money to charity.

[ElKabong]

Trap set, knowitall mail clerk bites. LMAO.

Well played, Tor.

[NJ Stinks]

Now about those lies you say disturb you so much. Before I can answer that, I need to know where you think she is lying. I know you are not the typical poster here who thinks Hillary Clinton is lying every time her lips move. So, if you could tell me where she might be not telling the truth, I will give my opinion on those times.

Here are a few examples.

1. Trans Pacific Partnership - While serving as Obama's secretary of state, Clinton praised TPP as a deal that "sets the gold standard in trade agreements." Now that she needs Bernie's backers, she is opposed to it. If one considers the fact that her husband made the final push to make the North American Free Trade Agreement law, I find it hard to believe Hillary's most recent position on something I consider most important to US labor.

2. There are many #2's. They all go like this: I don't believe her when she says that she is OK now with gay marriage. I believe she thinks it's in her best interest to be pro gay marriage today so she is. I want to vote for a true believer - not somebody who was for the war before she was against the war.

3. Then there is something like The Glass-Steagall Act. Why would she not be for it like Bernie and Warren? It can only be because of her allegiance to her pals on Wall Street as far as I'm concerned. But we don't really know why because she prefers not to speak plainly unless she knows it will be well received.

Yea, Hillary is a more stable choice than Trump. And Hillary will always be more reassuring than Donny because Hillary will always tell us what she thinks most of us want to hear. Plus, as most former (or current) government employees will understand, why the hell would I ever vote Republican? They just want to take away the benefits I earned years ago because they decided in recent years they don't believe in employee benefits anymore. :mad:

Still, I have to decide if I can vote in my best interest - for Hillary. I doubt if I will - not just for the reasons stated above but also because I don't want to reward the DNC for setting up Hillary to beat Bernie in the primaries.

In short, Mostpost, I like to sleep peacefully at night and Hillary could cost me some beauty sleep! :)

[JustRalph]

There is Wikileaks's email threads that verify your number 2 concern NJ.

https://regated.com/2016/10/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage/

[mostpost]

Here are a few examples.

1. Trans Pacific Partnership - While serving as Obama's secretary of state, Clinton praised TPP as a deal that "sets the gold standard in trade agreements." Now that she needs Bernie's backers, she is opposed to it. If one considers the fact that her husband made the final push to make the North American Free Trade Agreement law, I find it hard to believe Hillary's most recent position on something I consider most important to US labor.

2. There are many #2's. They all go like this: I don't believe her when she says that she is OK now with gay marriage. I believe she thinks it's in her best interest to be pro gay marriage today so she is. I want to vote for a true believer - not somebody who was for the war before she was against the war.

3. Then there is something like The Glass-Steagall Act. Why would she not be for it like Bernie and Warren? It can only be because of her allegiance to her pals on Wall Street as far as I'm concerned. But we don't really know why because she prefers not to speak plainly unless she knows it will be well received.

Yea, Hillary is a more stable choice than Trump. And Hillary will always be more reassuring than Donny because Hillary will always tell us what she thinks most of us want to hear. Plus, as most former (or current) government employees will understand, why the hell would I ever vote Republican? They just want to take away the benefits I earned years ago because they decided in recent years they don't believe in employee benefits anymore. :mad:

Still, I have to decide if I can vote in my best interest - for Hillary. I doubt if I will - not just for the reasons stated above but also because I don't want to reward the DNC for setting up Hillary to beat Bernie in the primaries.

In short, Mostpost, I like to sleep peacefully at night and Hillary could cost me some beauty sleep! :)

2.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

In 1999 Clinton said she supported the DOMA; but also said same sex unions should be recognized and same sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges every other American gets.

January 2000; marriage is as marriage always has been between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship.

In April 2000 Clinton again voiced support for civil unions.

In July 2004, Clinton spoke on the floor of the senate against a proposed Constittutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

October 2006 speaking to a group of gay elected officials, Clinton said she would support gay marriage in New York if it ever became law.

In May 2007 Clinton said she supported repealing that portion of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same sex marriages.

In March 2013 she announced her support for same sex marriage.

So there has been a sort of evolution there, but it is not a complete turn around. She has always supported gay rights and civil unions. Now she has extended her support to gay marriage.

Would you rather have someone in the White House who has come late to full support or one who will never support it?

More on you other points later.

[Tor Ekman]

Given the inflation in the spread of The Portly Pantsuit's ass and thighs since her Arkansas days, I wonder how much she currently deducts on her tax returns for the "charitable" contribution of her soiled undergarments?

[JustRalph]

Mostie, you're a despicable sycophant.

[Tom]

Would you rather have someone in the White House who has come late to full support or one who will never support it?

I would rather have someone who would be concerned with the economy, creating real jobs, moving towards energy independence, protecting our borders, trying to encourage American Exceptionalism, and trying to UNITE the country instead of dividing it.

[whodoyoulike]

From your beloved NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/16/us/clinton-taxes-laid-bare-line-by-line.html

:lol:

I read the link but how plausible is the article?

I've made many charitable contributions over the years and have never itemized to that level of detail. Maybe it seems reasonable to many gullible people 20+ years after it was written but without a copy of the Schedule A and supporting documents for verification, I'm skeptical.

... In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons' $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return. ...

[whodoyoulike]

I would rather have someone who would be concerned with the economy, creating real jobs, moving towards energy independence, protecting our borders, trying to encourage American Exceptionalism, and trying to UNITE the country instead of dividing it.

I thought you were voting for Trump.