Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Did Trump endanger Clinton with comment?

401 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I addressed it as such. Please pay attention.

Are you really that clueless to the lobbying power of the NRA?? Really??

And no.... the translation isn't just "gun owners" it also includes those organizations that will lobby and fight to protect all our Amendments and our Constitution.

Oh...they can choose Supreme Court justices? No? Then they can obviously stop a president from appointing Supreme Court justices. Oh...no they can't. 

What could he possibly have meant, then?

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
6 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

That it was sanctions against Iranians, and not blanket sanctions against Muslims.

Again...where do people get this idea that there is little or no vetting? There's an almost 2 year process. If your life is in danger now, you're not gonna make it 2 years. This is a non-issue. 

No this is an issue. I don't expect you to understand that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
28 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 All the info I've seen him post on this thread is available through reading, not experiencing.

i'm glad you noticed,  that is the problem, this american politics forum,  results of our politic seen 1000s times better in real world, by people that live here, pay taxes, go to work, or do not have a work to go to, health insurance, with myriads of details, and loopholes, ......ect  he does not have that perspective, yet he implys that he knows better than we do, who actually experience all that firsthand.  

 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath
4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

His own words indicate that this was a post-election scenario. Everyone is doing an extravagant dance trying to claim that it was about getting out the vote. The vote is over in a post-election scenario.

Um...  no.

The only "extravagant dance" is done by those (including you) who are trying to make something of nothing.

Edited by Aftermath
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

No this is an issue. I don't expect you to understand that.

If you are a refugee now, and your life is in danger now...and somehow you manage the application process for admission as a refugee...it's gonna take 18-24 months. 

Even if you make it to some camp, you'll have to make it through the winter without heat, medicine, or likely ample food.

You do the math. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh...they can choose Supreme Court justices?

Oh my.............With that kind of statement there is absolutely no reason for me to debate this with you any farther.

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Oh my.............With that kind of statement there is absolutely no reason for me to debate this with you any farther.

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You can go ahead and try to insult my intelligence, but the secret service have showed up to question people over less than he said. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath
3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

You can go ahead and try to insult my intelligence, but the secret service have showed up to question people over less than he said. 

Interesting... and people have lost their security clearance and went to jail for less than what Hillary did.  So that's a f#ck'd up argument.

 

Edited by Aftermath
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Interesting... and people have lost their security clearance and went to jail for less than what Hillary did.  So that's a f#ck'd up argument.

 

Who did?

People have lost security clearance and gone to jail when they were found to not be guilty of any wrongdoing? That is certainly news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lmao, that gets funnier by the day, she was not found neither guilty nor innocent,  there was no trial. yet she has enough pull to keep it from happening, for now

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath
Just now, ChaosRose said:

Who did?

People have lost security clearance and gone to jail when they were found to not be guilty of any wrongdoing? That is certainly news.

You only make yourself look foolish when you begin this intellectually dishonest approach.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
10 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh...they can choose Supreme Court justices? No? Then they can obviously stop a president from appointing Supreme Court justices. Oh...no they can't. 

What could he possibly have meant, then?

I see you added to your post after I quoted it. How nice!

The president nominates their choice for justice then it goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee which then will hold a hearing which involves interviewing the nominee and calling other witnesses if necessary. Then the nomination can be referred to the full Senate for a vote. 

No the president does not directly seat the next Supreme Court Justice the Senate does and political influence from other sectors are always in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Aftermath said:

You only make yourself look foolish when you begin this intellectually dishonest approach.

 

Oh...am I incorrect? Was she found guilty and indicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
5 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I see you added to your post after I quoted it. How nice!

The president nominates their choice for justice then it goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee which then will hold a hearing which involves interviewing the nominee and calling other witnesses if necessary. Then the nomination can be referred to the full Senate for a vote. 

No the president does not directly seat the next Supreme Court Justice the Senate does and political influence from other sectors are always in play.

I often add to posts. Sometimes I do so before I notice that anyone has responded, and sometimes afterwards. I don't actually think about your feelings before I decide whether or not to add information to a post. 

You know what Trump was saying, and so does everyone else. Stop trying to pretend. 

If all he was saying is that the NRA would lobby...why would it be "a horrible day?"

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

EXCLUSIVE: Enemies of Hillary and Bill say 27-year-old murder victim Seth Rich, suspected of leaking the DNC emails, belongs on the Clinton Death List - the 50-plus people with ties to the couple who have died before their time

 

The murder of Seth Rich, an analyst with the DNC shot in the back in Washington, D.C. on July 10, has taken a sinister turn. The 20,000 leaked DNC emails now being linked to Rich brought down close Hillary ally Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was forced out as DNC chairman. Rich's unsolved murder has reignited old rumors that Hillary and Bill will stop at nothing when they want to silence someone. Anti-Clinton forces say his name should be added to the 50-plus people on the Clinton Death List Those Hillary haters and conspiracy theorists say it's no coincidence that four other men with ties to the couple died prematurely within the last six weeks. Among the mysterious deaths John Ashe - who was about to stand trial in a corruption case linked to the Clintons. Ashe dropped a barbell on his neck as he was working out, crushing his windpipe. Shawn Lucas, 38, a process server, tried to serve papers on dethroned DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz and was found dead on his bathroom floor.

 
 
Edited by Sweetpumper
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Hillary isn't off the hook yet. She is still being investigated as more evidence comes in.

The fallout from Hillary Clinton's email scandal continues, as a newly released batch of correspondence from her time as secretary of state raises questions regarding the nature of the department's connection with the Clinton Foundation.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of emails, and according to the group, 44 of those pages were previously not handed over to the State Department during Clinton's tenure.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/10/newly-released-emails-show-state-department-ties-with-clinton-fo/21449011/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Again, people show that they're willing to run with conspiracy theories to try to smear people they don't agree with, politically.

 

Snopes: Seth Rich Murder “Conspiracy Theory” Shared On WhatDoesItMean.com Is False. Fact-checking website Snopes.com debunked the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered by “a Clinton ‘hit team’” because of his role at the DNC and the potential that he leaked information to Wikileaks. Writing about the story that appeared on WhatDoesItMean.com, Snopes noted that there “were myriad conflicting claims” about the homicide, including that Rich was “imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.)” Snopes also highlighted a recent string of robberies in the area, which police believe “was connected to with his death,” and noted that RationalWiki describes WhatDoesItMean.com as “‘sensational’ and ‘outrageous.’” [Snopes.com,8/10/16

D.C. Police: "At This Time" There Is No Evidence Rich’s Death And WikiLeaks Data Are Linked. The Washington Post quoted Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham saying that “‘at this time we don’t have any information to suggest’ a connection between Rich’s killing and the WikiLeaks data or other theories raised online.” [The Washington Post, 8/9/16]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjr_MG14LfOAhVDOyYKHRafCQAQFggiMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fresearch%2F2016%2F08%2F10%2Ffox-right-wing-media-run-conspiracy-linking-clinton-murdered-dnc-staffer%2F212304&usg=AFQjCNE7vndLfrgmPjMV3PW8ZAL_WGadTw&sig2=S_5iiDJMxsTU5PwYZGdqvQ

I have to wonder why Assange seemingly has it out for Hillary in such a huge way. He's obviously trying to affect our election. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath
14 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

You only make yourself look foolish when you begin this intellectually dishonest approach.

 

 

13 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh...am I incorrect? Was she found guilty and indicted?

Whatever...  I seriously cannot continue with such foolishness.  Only a cornucopia of stupidity awaits. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Aftermath said:

 

Whatever...  I seriously cannot continue with such foolishness.  Only a cornucopia of stupidity awaits. 

Oh...so she wasn't actually indicted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Chin up, people....more evidence is coming out against Hillary every day. But, there will still be people thinking this is a huge conspiracy against her. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
19 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I often add to posts. Sometimes I do so before I notice that anyone has responded, and sometimes afterwards. I don't actually think about your feelings before I decide whether or not to add information to a post. 

You know what Trump was saying, and so does everyone else. Stop trying to pretend. 

If all he was saying is that the NRA would lobby...why would it be "a horrible day?"

Have you actually watched the full video of Trump's comments? I don't think you have digested anymore than the few sound bites put forth by the MSM. The horrible day is Trump referring to hillary appointing supreme court justices.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper
13 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Again, people show that they're willing to run with conspiracy theories to try to smear people they don't agree with, politically.

 

Snopes: Seth Rich Murder “Conspiracy Theory” Shared On WhatDoesItMean.com Is False. Fact-checking website Snopes.com debunked the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered by “a Clinton ‘hit team’” because of his role at the DNC and the potential that he leaked information to Wikileaks. Writing about the story that appeared on WhatDoesItMean.com, Snopes noted that there “were myriad conflicting claims” about the homicide, including that Rich was “imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.)” Snopes also highlighted a recent string of robberies in the area, which police believe “was connected to with his death,” and noted that RationalWiki describes WhatDoesItMean.com as “‘sensational’ and ‘outrageous.’” [Snopes.com,8/10/16

D.C. Police: "At This Time" There Is No Evidence Rich’s Death And WikiLeaks Data Are Linked. The Washington Post quoted Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham saying that “‘at this time we don’t have any information to suggest’ a connection between Rich’s killing and the WikiLeaks data or other theories raised online.” [The Washington Post, 8/9/16]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjr_MG14LfOAhVDOyYKHRafCQAQFggiMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fresearch%2F2016%2F08%2F10%2Ffox-right-wing-media-run-conspiracy-linking-clinton-murdered-dnc-staffer%2F212304&usg=AFQjCNE7vndLfrgmPjMV3PW8ZAL_WGadTw&sig2=S_5iiDJMxsTU5PwYZGdqvQ

I have to wonder why Assange seemingly has it out for Hillary in such a huge way. He's obviously trying to affect our election. 

Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Have you actually watched the full video of Trump's comments? I don't think you have digested anymore than the few sound bites put forth by the MSM. The horrible day is Trump referring to hillary appointing supreme court justices.

 

Of course I've seen the whole thing. I'm watching him like a hawk.

You can try to spin it any way you like. America knows what he said, and so does the secret service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
9 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh...so she wasn't actually indicted. 

Let's see Bill Clinton met with Lynch prior to the FBI releasing their findings. Lynch didn't recuse herself and this in itself is grounds for impeachment against Loretta Lynch. Furthermore Comey stated that Hillary was not truth full in her statements and that means she lied to Congress. So Congress still has the authority to bring Hillary up for contempt for lying to Congress. This isn't over.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The terrible argument that just won't die....  What specifically has Leo said that relies on him actually having been here?  All the info I've seen him post on this thread is available through reading, not experiencing.  This just looks like an ad hominem to me.

To clarify, I have holidayed in the US - although it was many years ago. While aztek may have meant "lived here", he said "been here" - which I certainly have. But you are right, me having "been there" is immaterial as to how my arguments on various threads bear scrutiny.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.