Jump to content

WikiLeaks just released more emails


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...good grief.

Anything to defend your dems, huh?

You think pubs don't cheat on spouses! The donald has changed spouses three times. I have been married to the same person for 30 years and anyone is welcome to see my taxes, And i welcome people of all races around me and my family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, new tobie said:

You think pubs don't cheat on spouses! The donald has changed spouses three times. I have been married to the same person for 30 years and anyone is welcome to see my taxes, And i welcome people of all races around me and my family. 

You made my point...you bring up Trump and his wives all the time, but Bill''s cheating and Hillary putting up with it and even helping provide cover...no big deal.

And where you got the idea that I don't think Republicans cheat, I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, new tobie said:

You think pubs don't cheat on spouses! The donald has changed spouses three times. I have been married to the same person for 30 years and anyone is welcome to see my taxes, And i welcome people of all races around me and my family. 

And why do you believe what you just stated doesn't apply to everyone else on this board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, new tobie said:

You think pubs don't cheat on spouses! The donald has changed spouses three times. I have been married to the same person for 30 years and anyone is welcome to see my taxes, And i welcome people of all races around me and my family. 

You've been married to the same woman for 30 years. What do you want, a medal? I think she deserves one. Lol. Had a good neighbor who was black. Got along fine, better than a lot of whites I have lived around. Can I get a medal? It all depends on the person, not color.

Trump has had his share of marriages and divorces, but he didn't have sex in the Oval office. Oh, I forgot, that's not considered sex by Clinton's definition. Lmao.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

These high ranking Democrats are totally above the law.  The rich get charged, and get great attorneys to get off.  The Dems don't even get charged.  Justice is only for the middle class and the poor.  We've come a long way - downhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikileaks bringing the pain:

Clinton's Press Sec

Brian Fallon ‏@brianefallon 2h2 hours ago
How about probing possibility of Trump associates directly coordinating with Russia and Wikileaks? That is the thing that shd cause chills

Wikileaks

WikiLeaksVerified account
‏@wikileaks
@brianefallon They aren't. But since you bring up media illicitly co-ordinating with campaigns and PACs, try:
This is the hidden content, please
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2016 at 8:06 PM, REBgp said:

I've had trouble rationalizing why Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary.   Trump wants to make us strong again, while the Dems are destroying our country.  It finally dawned on me.  All the Dems, and some Rep are aiding/encouraging our descent into Globalization, more commonly known as "A one world Government".   Putin, and the Russian people, want no part of it.   Now 20 or 30 years ago if you mentioned one world Govt, you were labeled a conspiracy theorist.  Even I didn't totally buy into it - stupid me.  Some of you may not believe it now, but you will.

Only NOW because it fits your agenda to maintain control and power 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, new tobie said:

Just heard about trump writing several books. They all ended at chapter 11.

along with:  Mark Twain, P.T. Barnum, Henry John Heinz, Milton Hershey, Abe Lincoln, Wayne Newton, M.C. Hammer, 50 Cent, Walt Disney, George McGovern, Henry Ford, Mickey Rooney, Debbie Reynolds, Jerry Lee Lewis, Burt Reynolds,Kim Basinger, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Dione Warwick, Michael Vick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...