At least he's not Hillary...

[wesfau2]

Master-panderer tells NRA that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.


https://twitter.com/ReutersLive/status/733731614300065793

[Kaos]

Master-panderer tells NRA that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.


https://twitter.com/ReutersLive/status/733731614300065793

She does.  But not directly.  She'll chip away at it from a variety of angles until the amendment -- which will remain -- will be toothless.

[Token]

Master-panderer tells NRA that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.


https://twitter.com/ReutersLive/status/733731614300065793

You confuse me. You're totally ok with the game of bullshit Hillary is "playing" to beat Bernie, but Trump is "master panderer"?

Looks like he's playing the same bullshit game you seemed to be fine with the other day.

[AUChizad]

She does.  But not directly.  She'll chip away at it from a variety of angles until the amendment -- which will remain -- will be toothless.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/05/20/dont-trust-trumps-nra-backed-promises/

Don’t Trust Trump’s NRA Backed Promises
By: Brandon Morse

“Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

It’s a phrase nerds know that keeps going through my head when I see promises made, and statements stated, and many words from good brains are spoken during the general election. While technically Trump isn’t the Republican nominee yet, the reality is that he’s the last man standing, and now he has Hillary to face.

So with a good chunk of the Republican party now AWOL due to promising that they’ll never vote for an authoritarian with an anger problem, Trump is left to do what he can to pad his voting base. He can approach disaffected Bernie voters, but it might not be enough.

He needs to win back would be Republican voters.

So of course he’s going to get up on a stage provided by the much Republican loved NRA, and say words that even make me turn and look at him fondly. It’s great to hear that we won’t have any more gun free zones. It’s cool to hear someone say that they’ll fight for 2A tooth and nail. He scratched every itch a gun rights loving person could want scratched.

As a man who loves his guns, and think they’re a key to a prosperous and safe civilization, Trump’s promises are like whipped cream on a chocolate dipped strawberry.

But as our own Susan Wright pointed out, many of these promises ring hollow. This is the same man who supported a gun ban before it was politically inconvenient to do so. This is a man who was in full agreement with Obama when it came to Newtown

Let’s remember that this is the same Trump that declared every one of his promises were merely suggestions. Everything from his SCOTUS picks, to his Muslim ban, to his ev-er-y-thing.

If we didn’t believe him about his sudden right-wing-swing from his leftism before, we sure as shoot (pun intended) shouldn’t believe his words when spoken in front of a huge NRA screen. His “gun free zone” promise is worth just as much as everything else he’s promised, and walked back on, so far.

As I said, this is the general now, despite it not being officially yet. Trump will say whatever is necessary to make any ex-Republicans return in order to cement his seat of power.

Remember, “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

I think Bruce Carrol summed it up nicely.

I'm #NeverTrump always.
Not just when he's being an asshole.
Not when he's on his best behavior.
Not when his poll numbers are high.

[AUChizad]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/20/nra-endorsed-trump-said-in-2012-obama-spoke-for-me-when-sandy-hook-happened.html

NRA-Endorsed Trump Said In 2012 ‘Obama Spoke For Me’ When Sandy Hook Happened

In the direct aftermath of the horrific Newtown school shooting in 2012, Donald Trump proudly stood with President Obama, shortly before the president would start his legislative standoff with the National Rifle Association.

“President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in [Newtown,] Connecticut,” Trump tweeted on December 17, 2012, just one day after Obama had declared there was no “excuse for inaction” on gun-violence prevention measures.

Three and a half years later, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee strutted on stage at the NRA’s convention in Kentucky to stand with the NRA, bash Obama and the Democrats, and enthusiastically accept their presidential endorsement.

“I will not let you down,” Trump told the pro-gun crowd on Friday afternoon, thanking them for the “fantastic honor” of their endorsement. The NRA’s chief lobbyist Chris Cox had just introduced the real estate mogul as “the next President of the United States.”

Trump continued to whip the crowd into a frenzy by explaining how Hillary Clinton would “strip away” Americans’ gun rights, and how President Trump would make “getting rid of gun-free zones” a top priority.


Trump’s past squishiness on—if not hostility toward—the NRA’s hardline agenda is well known and well documented. But that hasn’t stopped him from rebranding himself lately as a major champion, if not savior, for the Second Amendment and the excesses that come with it.

“If I run for president, and if I win, the Second Amendment will. Be. Totally. Protected. That I can tell you,” Trump told the annual NRA gathering last year.

It’s not a surprise that Trump would jettison any hint of a moderate position on guns while running for president and seeking the NRA’s coveted endorsement. In a post-Sandy Hook political environment, the NRA has since kicked into high gear to quash anything even slightly resembling real gun reform.

Right around the time Trump had praised Obama for his leadership in the direct aftermath of the Newtown massacre, the NRA was busy telling America that Obama—like a tyrant or a dictator—was coming to take their guns.

The gun lobby also threw every scare tactic and culture-war trope they knew at the wall, hoping most of it would stick.

“I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like American Psycho, Natural Born Killers—they’re aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every single day,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in his post-Sandy Hook press conference in December 2012.

Throughout the years, he and his organization have routinely maintained that the proliferation of guns in America is basically all that is standing between you and the terrorists and “rapers.”

“There are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all,” LaPierre ranted against in 2014.

And now the NRA has their candidate for 2016: a man today insisted that “the Second Amendment is under threat like never before,” and that his Democratic opponent is “the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office.”

“The Second Amendment is on the ballot in November,” Trump said as he accepted the NRA’s endorsement on Friday.

“The only way to save our Second Amendment is to vote for a person that you all know named Donald Trump,” he insisted.

[wesfau2]

You confuse me. You're totally ok with the game of bullshit Hillary is "playing" to beat Bernie, but Trump is "master panderer"?

Looks like he's playing the same bullshit game you seemed to be fine with the other day.

I was being sarcastic about the "master" part.  He didn't nuance the pandering at all: he identified the audience's apocalyptic scenario (total abolishment of the 2nd Amendment...never going to happy, by the way) and he laid it at his opponent's feet.

[AUChizad]

So much for y'all's little theory...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/data-backs-argument-trump-not-140041120.html

There is more evidence now casting doubt on Donald Trump’s claim that he is expanding the Republican Party.

Additional data from the GOP primary shows that increased turnout in several primary states was driven largely byalready-active Republican voters who have historically skipped primaries and voted only in general elections .

Trump has boasted that he is drawing new voters to the political process and to the GOP. And the theory of how he might overcome the Democrats’ growing demographic advantage in key swing states where white voters are no longer dominant majorities rests on the assumption that nontraditional voters, many from the white working class, have been flocking to the polls for the first time in their lives in order to cast their votes for Trump.

Primary election statistics collected by Politico this week first cast doubt on that claim. And now new data – voter files combined with field polling from these states collected by a Republican data analysis firm that worked for Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) presidential campaign – lend more weight to the conclusion that Trump’s candidacy is not game-changing, or particularly well-positioned for the general election.

There is a significant caveat to all this, an unknown that can’t be measured. Even if Trump’s support has come from traditional Republican voters, is the fact that so many individuals who don’t usually vote in primaries did so predictive of a wave of entirely new voters who will come to the polls in November? It’s possible. The general election is a far bigger event than any one state’s primary, so participation is easier for voters who don’t follow politics as closely as those who vote in primaries.

And of course, the other significant question is whether likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton can turn out as many voters as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012. This, also, is a big hurdle.

What is clear is, the data so far do indicate that Trump has not yet significantly grown the Republican Party. There are small numbers of new voters who came to the polls this year, and in one state — New Hampshire — that might be enough to help Trump win. But in several other swing states — Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan — if the Democrats can reassemble the Obama coalition, Trump’s new support is not enough to win.

0ptimus , the data and analytics firm that worked for Rubio, focused its analysis on a few key states.

In Virginia, there was a stunning turnout in the Republican primary on March 1. More than three times the number of primary voters in 2012 came to the polls, a total of 1,025,452.

Of that total, 18.6 percent, or 190,734, were regular primary voters. But they were swamped by voters who usually only participate in general elections. That group made up 72.1 percent of the Republican primary electorate in Virginia. Younger voters who weren’t eligible for previous elections and those who moved into the state made up 3.6 percent.

Only 5.7 percent of the more than 1 million primary voters were new voters. That’s a total of 58,450 new voters.

To put that in perspective, look at the 2012 general election. In 2012 in Virginia, President Obama defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney by almost 150,000 votes. Obama received 1,971,820 votes to Romney’s 1,822,522.

So if you add the nearly 60,000 votes to a Republican nominee, but the Democrat recreates Obama’s turnout — which, again, is not a sure thing — then the Republican is still 90,000 votes short.

And keep in mind that the Virginia primary was one of the most closely contested in the GOP race. Trump won the state, but with only one-third of the vote. He got 356,840 votes but Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ohio Gov. John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson received a combined 657,080 votes.

Many of those Republican voters will turn out for Trump against Clinton even if they opposed him in the primary. But some number won’t.

To go further, Optimus looked at the results of almost 4,000 telephone surveys they did around the time of the primary. Using those responses, they built a model of the Virginia electorate, and found that of the 72 percent of voters who were new to the primary but usually voted in the general election, “the vast majority” were voters who were likely to support a Republican candidate already.

This confirmed that the “new” primary voters were almost all regular Republican voters who usually just cast ballots in a general election in the fall . They are not first-time voters or traditionally Democratic-leaning individuals who crossed over.

The same dynamic occurred when 0ptimus looked at Ohio. The Buckeye State saw 1,988,960 people come to the polls for the Republican primary this year, up from 1,213,879 in 2012 and 1,095,917 in 2008. Of those, some 53.6 percent were regular primary voters, and 36.8 percent were regular general election voters. Only 5.9 percent were new voters, yielding a total of roughly 118,000 votes.

Romney lost Ohio in 2012 by 166,000 votes, so while 118,000 new voters would get Trump closer to winning if Clinton maintains the Obama number, it wouldn’t get him over the top.

The same scenario played out in Michigan, where there were a lot of new voters this year, about 119,000. Even so, Romney lost that state in 2012 by 450,000 votes.

In New Hampshire, there were 37,000 new voters, and Romney only lost by 39,000 in 2012. That was the one state surveyed by 0ptimus where Trump’s primary election numbers indicated a better chance of winning there than Romney had in 2012. But flipping New Hampshire into the Republican column would not be nearly enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes required to secure the presidency.

The authors of the paper from 0ptimus concluded: “The increase in presidential primary turnout should give little comfort to the GOP as it looks ahead to November’s general election.”

[AUChizad]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-donald-trump-worth-reveals-in-deposition-tim-obrien-lawsuit-2006/

In lawsuit deposition, Trump repeatedly called out for exaggerating wealth

In a weekend interview, Hillary Clinton said the only way to know whether Donald Trump is "really successful" is if he reveals his tax returns.

Forbes magazine estimates Trump is worth $4.5 billion, but Trump's latest financial disclosure, filed last week, said he's worth more than $10 billion.

In 2005, New York Times reporter Tim O'Brien claimed in a book called "Trump Nation" that Trump was worth at best $250 million, when Trump and others said he was a billionaire. Trump sued the reporter for over $2 billion, but the lawsuit opened him up to a close scrutiny of his finances, reports CBS News correspondent Julianna Goldman.

When he filed the 2006 lawsuit, Trump claimed that a major part of his success was based on the "accurate perception by the financial community and public that [he] is a billionaire."

During a two-day deposition, he was repeatedly called out for exaggerating his wealth -- like when Trump told Larry King he was paid $1 million for a speech to The Learning Annex. But in the deposition, Trump conceded the actual payment was $400,000. The rest he attributed to The Learning Annex's promotional expenses.

During questioning, he acknowledged he didn't fully explain how he came up with the million dollar value.

"I don't break it down," Trump said.

The discrepancies between what Trump says his net worth is and what others estimate it to be often rests on the valuation of his brand. Over the years, Trump's international real estate developments have grown, but many of those buildings are licensed and not owned.

In 2014, Trump said his brand was worth $3.3 billion. Last year, Forbes magazine listed it at $125 million.

Behind closed doors, Trump conceded property values are often subjective.

"You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?" he was asked in the deposition.

"Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day," Trump responded.

In the deposition, the attorney presented estimates of his net worth by two banks where Trump had applied for lines of credit. Both concluded Trump was worth about a third of the $3.5 billion he claimed in 2005.

Trump said the numbers were wrong and the banks did not do an exhaustive search of his assets.

On the campaign trail Trump boasts that he is not a politician, but under oath, he said he spins his business like any politician.

"Have you ever lied in public... about your properties?" he was asked.

"I try and be truthful," he said. "You always - when you are making a public statement - you want to say it the most positive way possible. I'm no different from a politician running for office."

One area where Trump has broken with previous presidential candidates is refusing to release his tax returns, which would provide a fuller picture of his wealth and document his income in far greater detail than the financial disclosures he's already released.

"I think that to get a full idea of who he is, those returns are an essential piece," said former IRS commissioner Mark Everson, who served under President George W. Bush.

Everson said Trump's excuse that he's being audited doesn't pass muster.

"He doesn't have a tax reason in my opinion to fail to release those seven years that have been audited and cleared," Everson said. "I think this is a political calculation by the candidate not to release the returns."

In response to this report, Trump told CBS News in a statement: "Timothy O'Brien knows nothing about me. His book was a total failure. I haven't even heard his name in over a decade, but ultimately I had great success doing what I wanted to do -- costing this third rate reporter a lot of legal fees."

A spokesman for Trump said the original book wasn't relevant then and it's not now.

"Mr. Trump has just filed the largest personal financial disclosure form in the history of the FEC, which shows among the greatest real estate assets in the world, very low debt, tremendous cash flow and an income statement showing $557 million per year. Mr. Trump's net worth is in excess of $10 billion. The Trump brand is more valuable and popular now than ever before and Timothy O'Brien's book, which wasn't relevant, accurate or successful a decade ago, certainly isn't relevant now."

Trump's 2006 lawsuit was dismissed. He appealed and lost the appeal.

Is there anything this guy doesn't lie/exaggerate about himself?

[Kaos]

Are you ever going to realize that if he were a gecko painted purple, he's still an exponentially better choice than that fucking bitch whore Hillary? 

I don't care what he's said or done in the past. You're wasting the whole Internet with all these (predictable) media attacks. 

[Kaos]

So much for y'all's little theory...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/data-backs-argument-trump-not-140041120.html

Do you realize just how fucking STUPID that article is? 

Trump didn't bring new voters. But more people voted in the primary.  And more people voted for him than any candidate in history.  But they weren't new voters. 

And if Hillary can get all the people who voted for Obama to vote for her, plus a few more, she might still win! 

Fuck you for posting that idiotic drivel.  And fuck me for reading any of it. 

[AUChizad]

Are you ever going to realize that if he were a gecko painted purple, he's still an exponentially better choice than that fucking bitch whore Hillary? 

I don't care what he's said or done in the past. You're wasting the whole Internet with all these (predictable) media attacks.

Translation

"YOU REALIZE I'M A BRAINWASHED IDIOT THAT WILL LITERALLY ELECT HITLER OR KIM JONG IL BECAUSE REPUBLICAN!!!"

Yes. I realize that. You seem to think it's a virtue. It makes you a braindead idiot. And dangerous.

[AUJarhead]

Translation

"YOU REALIZE I'M A BRAINWASHED IDIOT THAT WILL LITERALLY ELECT HITLER OR KIM JONG IL BECAUSE REPUBLICAN!!!"

Yes. I realize that. You seem to think it's a virtue. It makes you a braindead idiot. And dangerous.

Sounds just like the people voting for Hillary, also.

[Kaos]

Translation

"YOU REALIZE I'M A BRAINWASHED IDIOT THAT WILL LITERALLY ELECT HITLER OR KIM JONG IL BECAUSE REPUBLICAN!!!"

Yes. I realize that. You seem to think it's a virtue. It makes you a braindead idiot. And dangerous.

I'm not a Republican.  I vote for whoever I think will do the best job or be the least damaging.  I voted against empty-suit Obama.  All the reasons I opposed him have come to pass.  I was right.  I voted against him twice.  Not because I am a Republican but because I thought his background and his vision for how he wanted to remake the country was flat wrong.  He's worse than I imagined he would have been.

I voted for Bush before him despite grave misgivings (I'd met the guy and thought he was singularly unimpressive).  But Gore was a raving lunatic.  And Kerry was a pussified liar.  I couldn't  vote for either of them even though I was no big fan of Bush.

I actually wanted Rudy G.  Not because he was a Republican but I saw what he did in New York, saw his leadership during 911 and thought he'd be one of the best presidents of my lifetime. But the media didn't want him and he made some really bad choices (not policy choices, just where to spend his campaign dollars).  Media wanted Gore and figured he'd have an easier time with Bush.  But he was unelectable.

You're trolling right along with the left-skewed media and thinking all these "reports" and opinions are somehow valid.  That moronic thing you posted about Hillary keeping all of Obama's votes, therefore Trump didn't bring anybody to the party was an enormous pile of dung.  Garbage.  It shows how stupid and desperate the media is to find some negative. 

I thought you were smarter than that.  Why are you buying their bullshit in bulk and passing on the treason committed by Hellary?  Why are you ignoring her husband's 20-something trips with a pedophile to "orgy island?"  She knew.  Why are you dismissing the fact that she deleted thousands of incriminating emails? That she lied to Congress? That she got Americans killed by her indifference as Secretary of State?  She's a criminal.  Any one of those things is a thousand times worse than the combined total of "well Trump sold steaks, and thought he had more money than he did, and uhhhh, isn't getting more votes even though he is..." fucking idiocy you keep posting.  Any one of them is exponentially worse. 

But you keep on posting the Trump shit if it makes you feel better.

[AUChizad]

Why are you ignoring her husband's 20-something trips with a pedophile to "orgy island?"  She knew.

First of all, this scandal is inferring a lot about Bill's actual involvement in any of that shit just because Epstein was a donor and they rubbed elbows. Until I see photographic proof of Bill fucking a 13 year old, consider me a skeptic.

But if you believe that Clinton MUST have been involved in "Pedophile Island", you must also believe Trump did. But lemme guess. It's only a problem that the presidential candidate's HUSBAND may have been involved in that scandal, but not the guy actually running for president? Guilt by association is worse than actual guilt right? Or are you cherry picking so that only Bill is guilty but not Donald based on the same reports and court documents?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5749/both-trump-and-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-amanda-prestigiacomo

The Republican presumptive nominee apparently got in on the action, too. Trump’s ties to Epstein — a man Trump once called a “terrific guy” — and Sex Slave Island have been chronicled by The Daily Wire here.

 Per The Political Insider, Trump is accused of threatening and raping a 13-year-old girl on the private island. Epstein is also named in the suit for sexual misconduct.

Why are you dismissing the fact that she deleted thousands of incriminating emails? That she lied to Congress? That she got Americans killed by her indifference as Secretary of State?  She's a criminal.

I'm not dismissing those things. They are very troubling, and I've stated such on here multiple times.

The Benghazi thing is certainly not nothing as some on the left have purported, but I think there's a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in the fog of war and hindsight is 20/20. I'm not outright defending it, I just think that lost of similarly fucked up incidents happened under Bush/Petraeus but Fox News isn't pushing those incidents into your earhole so you're not outraged by them. And you seem to think that the guy who flat-out said he would force the military to commit war crime after war crime would be better about this. I think that is an illogical assumption.

The deletion of private emails off of her home server is a bigger problem to me, to be honest. That is a major security violation and scrubbing her servers implies guilt of a coverup of something, and at BEST is a clear "fuck you" to the interest of government transparency. You seem to think that the guy who threatens to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry that questions or challenges him about anything ever with lawsuits or "spilling the beans on their wife" or other libelous threats and flat out said he would do away with freedom of the press going to be better about transparency. I think that is an illogical assumption.

[dallaswareagle]

First of all, this scandal is inferring a lot about Bill's actual involvement in any of that shit just because Epstein was a donor and they rubbed elbows. Until I see photographic proof of Bill fucking a 13 year old, consider me a skeptic.

But if you believe that Clinton MUST have been involved in "Pedophile Island", you must also believe Trump did. But lemme guess. It's only a problem that the presidential candidate's HUSBAND may have been involved in that scandal, but not the guy actually running for president? Guilt by association is worse than actual guilt right? Or are you cherry picking so that only Bill is guilty but not Donald based on the same reports and court documents?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5749/both-trump-and-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-amanda-prestigiacomo
I'm not dismissing those things. They are very troubling, and I've stated such on here multiple times.

The Benghazi thing is certainly not nothing as some on the left have purported, but I think there's a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in the fog of war and hindsight is 20/20. I'm not outright defending it, I just think that lost of similarly fucked up incidents happened under Bush/Petraeus but Fox News isn't pushing those incidents into your earhole so you're not outraged by them. And you seem to think that the guy who flat-out said he would force the military to commit war crime after war crime would be better about this. I think that is an illogical assumption.

The deletion of private emails off of her home server is a bigger problem to me, to be honest. That is a major security violation and scrubbing her servers implies guilt of a coverup of something, and at BEST is a clear "fuck you" to the interest of government transparency. You seem to think that the guy who threatens to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry that questions or challenges him about anything ever with lawsuits or "spilling the beans on their wife" or other libelous threats and flat out said he would do away with freedom of the press going to be better about transparency. I think that is an illogical assumption.

The fact that you think deleting E-mails is bigger than the loss of 4 American lives says a lot about you.

[AUChizad]

The fact that you think deleting E-mails is bigger than the loss of 4 American lives says a lot about you.

I think it's a clearer case of malicious intent.

[WiregrassTiger]

I think it's a clearer case of malicious intent.

Just like you clearly have a case of the gobblesgoobers.

[Kaos]

First of all, this scandal is inferring a lot about Bill's actual involvement in any of that shit just because Epstein was a donor and they rubbed elbows. Until I see photographic proof of Bill fucking a 13 year old, consider me a skeptic.

Rubbing elbows is much different than "rubbing wieners" 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com. The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

But if you believe that Clinton MUST have been involved in "Pedophile Island", you must also believe Trump did. But lemme guess. It's only a problem that the presidential candidate's HUSBAND may have been involved in that scandal, but not the guy actually running for president? Guilt by association is worse than actual guilt right? Or are you cherry picking so that only Bill is guilty but not Donald based on the same reports and court documents?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5749/both-trump-and-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-amanda-prestigiacomo

Really? Do you even read the bullshit you're peddling?  Trump "allegedly" flew on his jet once. In 2004. No records to prove it other than one guy saying he did.   Clinton most certainly did.  More than 20 times. 

Trump is ser-prise, ser-prise, ser-prise! being sued now for something that supposedly happened in 1994.  Who'd have guessed that was going to happen? 

Trump said this guy was a good dude, fun to be around.  Let's find all the people who said that about Jared from Subway before they found out what he was doing privately.  Or Bill Cosby.  Or AJ McCarron. 

I'm not dismissing those things. They are very troubling, and I've stated such on here multiple times.

You're dismissing them by focusing on things that don't matter.  Did Trump brag about his big bankroll?  Probably. So fucking what? Did he prank a reporter and pretend to be somebody else to brag on himself?  Who gives a tiddly shit?  That's not the same as ignoring the pleas of Americans for protection and then destroying evidence.  That's not the same as bilking investors. And destroying evidence. That's not the same as the holes in Vince Foster's head. And destroyed evidence. 

The Benghazi thing is certainly not nothing as some on the left have purported, but I think there's a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in the fog of war and hindsight is 20/20. I'm not outright defending it, I just think that lost of similarly fucked up incidents happened under Bush/Petraeus but Fox News isn't pushing those incidents into your earhole so you're not outraged by them. And you seem to think that the guy who flat-out said he would force the military to commit war crime after war crime would be better about this. I think that is an illogical assumption.

The typical Universatee of Alabammah response.  Oh yeah?  We cheated?  Well, everybody does. Not saying it's right, but yall does it too. Do you think Auburn is completely clean?  We know you probably payed Cam Newton1!  And James Brooks couldn't even read!!  Keep it down home cuz!! Haw!! 

The EXACT same thing they always do. 

Do I think the military makes mistakes?  Sometimes. But not out of indifference.  She did not give a fuck and could not be bothered. That's the difference.

Oh but Trump says!!! Do you think that concerns me in the least?
You're Fucking A right I'd rather have terrorists tortured than coddle them.  Rather than releasing them as the  Muslim Fuckhole in Chief seems determined to do.  You can't have a big stick and never swing it.  That's the sad reality. But I guess in your civilized mind, we should just talk to these lunatic fucks who want to murder us and explain why they shouldn't before we send them back home. 

The deletion of private emails off of her home server is a bigger problem to me, to be honest. That is a major security violation and scrubbing her servers implies guilt of a coverup of something, and at BEST is a clear "fuck you" to the interest of government transparency. You seem to think that the guy who threatens to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry that questions or challenges him about anything ever with lawsuits or "spilling the beans on their wife" or other libelous threats and flat out said he would do away with freedom of the press going to be better about transparency. I think that is an illogical assumption.

Once again with the patented Bammer response.

Well, yeah, the deleted emails are a problem... But TRUMP says!!!

Do you think I fucking care if he threatens to sue anybody?  If he stands up for his family against attacks by threatening people?  There's something twistedly chivalrous about that, actually. 

Funny that wes (and you) were all about the suing when we didn't like the new overtime rules.  But Trump sues?  Well fuck him!!! 

You're fighting a losing battle.  You actually lost a long time ago and I'm just humoring you, hoping you'll wake up. 

[AUChizad]

Rubbing elbows is much different than "rubbing wieners" 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com. The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.
 

Really? Do you even read the bullshit you're peddling?  Trump "allegedly" flew on his jet once. In 2004. No records to prove it other than one guy saying he did.   Clinton most certainly did.  More than 20 times. 

Trump is ser-prise, ser-prise, ser-prise! being sued now for something that supposedly happened in 1994.  Who'd have guessed that was going to happen? 

Trump said this guy was a good dude, fun to be around.  Let's find all the people who said that about Jared from Subway before they found out what he was doing privately.  Or Bill Cosby.  Or AJ McCarron. 

That's what I thought you'd say. It's 100% fact that Clinton was involved in the kiddy-fucking because he rode the plane (no matter how many times, although it would stand to reason that it would be more since he is a donor), but for Trump it's just hearsay & slander. Ok...

You're dismissing them by focusing on things that don't matter.  Did Trump brag about his big bankroll?  Probably. So fucking what? Did he prank a reporter and pretend to be somebody else to brag on himself?  Who gives a tiddly shit?  That's not the same as ignoring the pleas of Americans for protection and then destroying evidence.  That's not the same as bilking investors. And destroying evidence. That's not the same as the holes in Vince Foster's head. And destroyed evidence. 
 
The typical Universatee of Alabammah response.  Oh yeah?  We cheated?  Well, everybody does. Not saying it's right, but yall does it too. Do you think Auburn is completely clean?  We know you probably payed Cam Newton1!  And James Brooks couldn't even read!!  Keep it down home cuz!! Haw!! 

The EXACT same thing they always do. 

Do I think the military makes mistakes?  Sometimes. But not out of indifference.  She did not give a fuck and could not be bothered. That's the difference.

Oh but Trump says!!! Do you think that concerns me in the least?
You're Fucking A right I'd rather have terrorists tortured than coddle them.  Rather than releasing them as the  Muslim Fuckhole in Chief seems determined to do.  You can't have a big stick and never swing it.  That's the sad reality. But I guess in your civilized mind, we should just talk to these lunatic fucks who want to murder us and explain why they shouldn't before we send them back home. 

Once again with the patented Bammer response.

Well, yeah, the deleted emails are a problem... But TRUMP says!!!

Do you think I fucking care if he threatens to sue anybody?  If he stands up for his family against attacks by threatening people?  There's something twistedly chivalrous about that, actually. 

Funny that wes (and you) were all about the suing when we didn't like the new overtime rules.  But Trump sues?  Well fuck him!!! 

You're fighting a losing battle.  You actually lost a long time ago and I'm just humoring you, hoping you'll wake up.

Completely oblivious to the fact that YOU are deploying that same "what-aboutism" except only one of us is actually full-throatedly defending either of these candidates.

You're the Bama fans bitching up a storm that Laremy Tunsil be punished by the NCAA, but it's ok when Saban pays players, PAAAWWWL, cause he wears Crimson. Or has an R behind his name.

[Kaos]

That's what I thought you'd say. It's 100% fact that Clinton was involved in the kiddy-fucking because he rode the plane (no matter how many times, although it would stand to reason that it would be more since he is a donor), but for Trump it's just hearsay & slander. Ok...

No proof Trump did, just one guy's "I think I remember..."   
Proof that Clinton did, including the multiple times he ditched his security detail to go. 

I never said Bill diddled kiddies, but he's a proven lothario with a lusty appetite.  One is not 26. 

Completely oblivious to the fact that YOU are deploying that same "what-aboutism" except only one of us is actually full-throatedly defending either of these candidates.

Nope.  Just asking you why you're losing your shit over an alleged $500 handshake when T-Town Tom, Chargers, laptops, rental cars, house sitting, wheelz, coaches giving cash, and so on are out there.  You raise hell about Trump pranking a reporter like it's concrete proof of his deceptive nature and whitewash the real bullshit going on with Hillary.  You're the Bama fan.  Sorry. 

You're the Bama fans bitching up a storm that Laremy Tunsil be punished by the NCAA, but it's ok when Saban pays players, PAAAWWWL, cause he wears Crimson. Or has an R behind his name.

You got it backward hoss.  You've wasted untold hours bashing Trump for nothing, really, when the real dirt is piled around the other camp.  You're Clinton's Michael Casagrande.  The worst. 

I've told you a million times that whatever he may have done, it can't be worse than her.  Nothing is.  She is the most despicable human being alive today.  But you keep on pounding the drum. Can't wait for tomorrow when you tell us all that in 1972 Trump only tipped a waiter 18%.  Cheap bastard!!!  How can he be president!!! !