Hey boyz! Trump endorsed by David DuKKKe. Trump shits the bed.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

But this is my point, you can't bitch and moan about someone lying, but then support someone who is so clearly lying...

My point is that... If you support Trump, fine. But don't support Trump because you don't trust other politicians to be honest.

Who is supporting Trump? The point has nothing to do with Trump. The point is that your outrage is selective. When will you start a thread here mocking or complaining about any of Hillary's lies? You only want to talk about Trump. If someone brings up Hillary you have already shown a limitless capacity to explain away anything she says or does. We saw that in the thread about the email investigation. So stop pretending you're fair and balanced when you're not.

Originally Posted by eatfibo

If you care when the person you disagree with lies, but don't care when your own candidate lies, you are a hypocrite.

You just pegged yourself.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

http://fox2now.com/2016/02/28/donald...avid-duke-kkk/

The article said Trump not only disavowed Duke in 2000, but also did so just this past weekend. Did you read what he said .... this weekend ...? He never met him, and his hesitancy was over a broad brush with regard to organizations.

More "gotcha" bullshit like happens in this forum.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Who is supporting Trump? The point has nothing to do with Trump. The point is that your outrage is selective. When will you start a thread here mocking or complaining about any of Hillary's lies? You only want to talk about Trump's stumbles. If someone brings up Hillary you have already shown a limitless capacity to explain away anything she says or does. We saw that in the thread about the email investigation. So stop pretending you're fair and balanced when you're not.

Can you be specific about what I have "explained away," other than the single example of me defending the fact that we don't know whether or not she broke the law with her private email server? FTR, this is not me "defending Clinton," it's defending the facts.

The other day, I agreed with bambino that I would love to read the speeches she gave to "big banks." I even asked for them to be leaked.

Even here I am pointing out that Clinton made false statements, but it appears that the amount of false statements pales in comparison to the number Trump has made.

While I certainly prefer Clinton over Trump, and I can see why (based on that one thread) that you would think I was some kind of ardent supporter of her (I am not), I think you are focusing too narrowly on one thread, in order to generate some kind of double-standard of mine.

[LexusLover]

BTW, if it's going to be so easy for HillariousNoMore to beat Trump .... why trash the guy?

Encourage everyone to vote for him! Praise him. Beg for him to win the nomination!

"Throw him in the briar patch"!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The article said Trump not only disavowed Duke in 2000, but also did so just this past weekend. Did you read what he said .... this weekend ...? He never met him, and his hesitancy was over a broad brush with regard to organizations.

More "gotcha" bullshit like happens in this forum.

Trump stated he didn't know him, but he did in 2000. However he says he has the greatest memory in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...smtyp=cur&_r=0

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

[SIZE="2"]Trump stated he didn't know him, but he did in 2000.

Is that what he said? Is that all he said? Why do you obsessively latch on to a phrase and then report as though that's all they said.

When someone says that the "don't know" someone, that doesn't necessarily mean that don't know ANYTHING about them.... I may have met someone work worked for a specific company or was affiliated with a specific group at one time, but that doesn't mean I "know" them ... meaning all about their background and details about their lives.

For instance:



When you voted for him ... did you "know"?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is that what he said? Is that all he said? Why do you obsessively latch on to a phrase and then report as though that's all they said.

When someone says that the "don't know" someone, that doesn't necessarily mean that don't know ANYTHING about them.... I may have met someone work worked for a specific company or was affiliated with a specific group at one time, but that doesn't mean I "know" them ... meaning all about their background and details about their lives.

For instance:



When you voted for him ... did you "know"?

Repeating that old lie won't work lexie lacking. Here is you man......
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/D...ump-Quotes.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/nine-t...rticle/2000697

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

[SIZE="2"]Repeating that old lie won't work lexie lacking. ....

Repeating what lie? That Obaminable smokes? You mean you voted for someone and didn't know they smoked?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Mikes Vaginal Gash and her Maggots...

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

You did (well, said you could but didn't anyway) something I didn't ask you to. I asked you to show which one of Trump's statements was labelled "false" but actually wasn't. Because, frankly, that is the more important part to my point: if you whine about Hillary lying and then support Trump, despite his numerous lies, then you are holding a double standard. You either care about lying, or you don't. If you care when the person you disagree with lies, but don't care when your own candidate lies, you are a hypocrite.


Nor did I say you did. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting Hillary for lying while simultaneously supporting someone who lies probably more than she does.



Red herring, but still wrong. The FBI has still yet to make a statement publicly whether or not there is a criminal investigation or if the focus of that investigation is Clinton. That's a fact. There have been "unnamed sources" confirming what some people want to believe, and there are some people who think certain moves by the DOJ imply a criminal investigation (but of whom, it is not known), but it is not "a hard fact" that they are criminally investigating Clinton.

Red Herring my ass:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...obe-is-ongoing

Loretta Lynch also confirmed that there is an FBI investigation. Publicly

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

Red Herring my ass:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...obe-is-ongoing

From your own link (emphasis mine):

"Key details about the probe remain unclear, such as whether it is tied to a possible criminal case or whether it has expanded beyond an initial security review."

Loretta Lynch also confirmed that there is an FBI investigation. Publicly

No, she didn't. This is where the "implied" part comes in.

What she said is:

"with respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handle classified information, as I’m sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent, law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice, they follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate. And so beyond that, I’m not able to comment on the specific investigation at this time.”

She didn't say criminal, but it may be implied by the "career, independent attorneys" being assigned to the case. However, she says nothing about who that is even targeting, only that it is about the State Department. It could be anyone in that department, for all we know.

If you have another quote from her that actually says it is a criminal investigation and it is of Clinton herself, I would like to see it.

But, of course, we are being dragged off topic. I'll state it again: Trump lies at least as much as Clinton. Probably far more. If anyone here opposes Clinton for not being truthful, they should be applying that same metric to Trump.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The FBI has still yet to make a statement publicly whether or not there is a criminal investigation or if the focus of that investigation is Clinton. That's a fact.... it is not "a hard fact" that they are criminally investigating Clinton.

So was Hillary lying when she called it a “security review”?

In the New Hampshire debate with Senator Bernie Sanders, which aired on MSNBC, Clinton told moderator Chuck Todd that nothing would come of the FBI probe, “I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out.”

Not true says Steve Pomerantz, who spent 28 years at the FBI, and rose from field investigative special agent to the rank of assistant director, the third highest position in the Bureau.

“They (the FBI) do not do security reviews,” Pomerantz said. “What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal investigation.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...gents-say.html
.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

From your own link (emphasis mine):

"Key details about the probe remain unclear, such as whether it is tied to a possible criminal case or whether it has expanded beyond an initial security review."


No, she didn't. This is where the "implied" part comes in.

What she said is:

"with respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handle classified information, as I’m sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent, law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice, they follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate. And so beyond that, I’m not able to comment on the specific investigation at this time.”

She didn't say criminal, but it may be implied by the "career, independent attorneys" being assigned to the case. However, she says nothing about who that is even targeting, only that it is about the State Department. It could be anyone in that department, for all we know.

If you have another quote from her that actually says it is a criminal investigation and it is of Clinton herself, I would like to see it.

But, of course, we are being dragged off topic. I'll state it again: Trump lies at least as much as Clinton. Probably far more. If anyone here opposes Clinton for not being truthful, they should be applying that same metric to Trump.

You can't connect the dots when someone already connects them for you. Holy mackerel, or herring.

[IIFFOFRDB]

0zombies guarding their BOBO's... http://spectator.org/articles/64643/...fought-racists

And so the cry went up.

“Trump is a racist!” was the mocking cry from an off-stage Larry David when Trump recently hosted Saturday Night Live. The David bit was designed to make fun not of Trump but Trump’s critics. In this case a left-wing group calling itself deportracism.com which, without the slightest sense of irony, put together a thoroughly racist ad having children spewing obscenities as they proclaimed their allegiance not to America and its ideals but rather to their race. A chilling reminder of all those fresh-faced young Germans of long ago pledging allegiance to their Aryan race.

All of this is already old news. But there is a much older “old news” story about Trump that has now resurfaced — a story that paints a highly accurate portrait of the real Donald Trump — the guy who has no time for racism and anti-Semitism and stood up in public to fight both.

The story, linked by a group calling itself Zionists for Trump, was published in the Wall Street Journal — in 1997. It revolves around Trump’s purchase and operation of the famous Mar-a-Largo estate, built in the 1920s by Post Cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post. Trump had recently purchased the sprawling, seaside estate and turned it into a club. This being located in upscale Palm Beach, Florida, there were other prestigious clubs in the area, clubs that catered to the old order of upper crust Palm Beach society. The problem? Quietly, these other clubs had long barred Jews and African Americans — which is to say they practiced a quiet but steely racism.

The Zionists for Trump headline:

How Trump Fought Antisemitism and Racism in Palm Beach Two Decades Ago

The WSJ story that is linked focuses on the battles Trump faced as a new arrival to Palm Beach, including his new competition with the social clubs of the old order. The story, which quotes Abe Foxman, the longtime head of the Anti-Defamation League, says, in part, the following:

Mr. Trump also has resorted to the courts to secure his foothold here, and many residents wince at the attention his legal battles with the town have drawn — to the town in general, and to the admission practices at some of Palm Beach’s older clubs in particular.

…The culture clash began to approach a climax last fall, when Mr. Trump’s lawyer sent members of the town council a copy of the film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a film that deals with upper-class racism. Mr. Trump then approached the town council about lifting the restrictions that had been placed on the club. He also asked some council members not to vote on the request because their membership in other clubs created a conflict of interest.

Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages.

… Mr. Foxman seems pleased that Mr. Trump has elevated the issue of discriminatory policies at social clubs. “He put the light on Palm Beach,” Mr. Foxman says. “Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Foxman says, the league has received calls from Jewish residents telling of how Palm Beach clubs are changing. Locals concur that in the past year, organizations such as the Bath and Tennis Club have begun to admit Jewish patrons. The Palm Beach Civic Association, which for many years was believed to engage in discriminatory behavior, this month named a Jewish resident as its chief officer.

In other words? In other words, long before he was running for president, there was Donald Trump battling racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach society. Using every tool at his disposal.

The film he chose to send the Palm Beach town council was no accident. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was released in 1967 and starred film legends Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier. The Oscar-winning story revolved around a liberal, upper-class older couple who are stunned and discomfited when their daughter, played by Katharine Houghton, brings her new fiancé — Poitier — home to dinner and an introduction to her white parents. As liberals, her parents were staunch supporters of racial equality and had raised their daughter accordingly. Yet suddenly, in comes the very personal reality of equality when their daughter waltzes in the door after a vacation with husband-to-be Poitier, a black widower and doctor. Soul searching about just how devoted to equality they really are ensues.

Thus it was no accident that Trump selected this movie to tweak the members of both the Palm Beach town council and the larger white society it represented. Trump understood exactly what the game was and he would have none of it. In addition to sending a copy of the movie, he launched his lawyers, who filed that $100 million lawsuit “alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans.”

This is the same Donald Trump who employs hundreds of Hispanics in the Trump Organization at its various properties across America and around the globe.

Yet here comes the utterly predictable charge of racism from deportracism.com

One has to ask the obvious. Who are the real racists here? The Democratic Party, as we have noted in this space repeatedly, has a long and disgraceful history of out and out racism. Right from the beginning of its history, what became the American Left was on-record supporting slavery, segregation, lynching and, as noted by historians, used the Ku Klux Klan as the military arm of the party to enforce its racism. It was Franklin Roosevelt who issued the infamous Executive Order 9066 that rounded up Japanese-Americans — which is to say legal American citizens — and sent them to internment camps merely because of their race. When a Japanese-American fought the internment in the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, six of FDR’s liberal court appointees upheld the racist executive order. The opinion, in fact, was written by Justice Hugo Black — who held a “golden passport,” a lifetime membership, in the Ku Klux Klan.

In today’s world the Left demands racial quotas and supports illegal immigration. What all of these things have in common is that they are designed to divide Americans by race, to divide by skin color. Which is precisely what Donald Trump stood up and fought against when no one other than Palm Beach society was paying attention.

The harsh reality of the racism charge against Trump is not only that it is bogus, utterly false from start to finish. The reality is the charges of racism against Trump are coming from the one political force in the country that has a long, deep, and immutable history of racism. A racism that is no relic of a long ago past but both current and visceral, used now as it has always been used — to divide and judge by skin color for political profit.

The good news here that in Donald Trump someone — finally — is standing up to fight back. Just as he fought back all those years ago in Palm Beach when no one was looking.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So was Hillary lying when she called it a “security review”?

In the New Hampshire debate with Senator Bernie Sanders, which aired on MSNBC, Clinton told moderator Chuck Todd that nothing would come of the FBI probe, “I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out.”

Not true says Steve Pomerantz, who spent 28 years at the FBI, and rose from field investigative special agent to the rank of assistant director, the third highest position in the Bureau.

“They (the FBI) do not do security reviews,” Pomerantz said. “What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal investigation.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...gents-say.html
.

Either a lie or it represents a misunderstanding of the FBI's duties.