Hillary Clinton win = what for the economy?

[PaulT]

Can you sight the relevant law please?

Discussing or arranging to pay thugs. Two different things. We are in a sense discussing such here in this thread. Seems perfectly OK to me. Can you find the email you refer to so we can judge for ourselves. That would be much appreciated. Try not to quote Breitbart however. When someone tries to impugn someone else by innuendo I can't pay much attention. I would have to see the actual email you are referring to, because I know Clinton is a highly experienced politician. Certainly she herself would never suggest the things you claim by innuendo are in an email. It is possible that someone peripheral to her campaign might do such a ridiculous thing without authorization. I doubt that too though. Chances are the email you are referring to is exactly as you described it, a discussion of disruptions of Trump rallies by people who are perhaps clinton or bernie supporters but not in any way connected to either campaign. But to suggest, again by innuendo, that either the Clinton or Bernie campaigns would approve such idiotic behavior is frankly absurd. The last thing either of them would do is approve payments to physical disrupters of Trump's campaign. They will spend millions on legal political ads to disrupt his campaign, but pay for physical violence? Don't be stupid please. It would seem you are too easily manipulated. Do you know the meaning of the word "ostensibly?"

@ Piezoe - the video in question is widely available on the internet. The Washington Times discussed the fallout from the video in this article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/
Did HRC authorize or have knowledge of this? Who knows. But like Nixon in Watergate, she is ultimately responsible for the actions of her staffers.
I think, more to the point, is the systematic abrogation of what any reasonable person would consider appropriate behavior from a Presidential candidate. The actions of Wasserman-Schultz and, later, Donna Brazile; the lies to the FBI regarding the emails; the "sale" of State department influence for donations to the Clinton Foundation, and so on, are symptomatic of a level of corruption not seen in the White House for many years.

 

[Sig]

That's such an insightful and intelligent post, you've definitely raised the level of discourse and made people think, you should be so proud!

 

[Tom B]

That's such an insightful and intelligent post, you've definitely raised the level of discourse and made people think, you should be so proud!

Thank you. A picture is worth a thousand words. And, it is common knowledge that liberals need pictures for comprehension.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Thank you. A picture is worth a thousand words. And, it is common knowledge that liberals need pictures for comprehension.

An uneducated man like yourself would relate to pictures, certainly.

 

[Tom B]

An uneducated man like yourself would relate to pictures, certainly.

Ankle biter, once again you demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Ankle biter, once again you demonstrate your ignorance.

Intelligent people can read the shit you post and know you are an uneducated, ignorant man with highly bigoted views you are quite proud of. It is what it is, self awareness obviously isn't your strong suit.

 

[Tom B]

Intelligent people can read the shit you post and know you are an uneducated, ignorant man with highly bigoted views you are quite proud of. It is what it is, self awareness obviously isn't your strong suit.

You continue to demonstrate that you are an imbecile. What are my bigoted views? BTW, how is your lawsuit against ET progressing?

 

[ajcrshr]

Can you sight the relevant law please?

Discussing or arranging to pay thugs. Two different things. We are in a sense discussing such here in this thread. Seems perfectly OK to me. Can you find the email you refer to so we can judge for ourselves. That would be much appreciated. Try not to quote Breitbart however. When someone tries to impugn someone else by innuendo I can't pay much attention. I would have to see the actual email you are referring to, because I know Clinton is a highly experienced politician. Certainly she herself would never suggest the things you claim by innuendo are in an email. It is possible that someone peripheral to her campaign might do such a ridiculous thing without authorization. I doubt that too though. Chances are the email you are referring to is exactly as you described it, a discussion of disruptions of Trump rallies by people who are perhaps clinton or bernie supporters but not in any way connected to either campaign. But to suggest, again by innuendo, that either the Clinton or Bernie campaigns would approve such idiotic behavior is frankly absurd. The last thing either of them would do is approve payments to physical disrupters of Trump's campaign. They will spend millions on legal political ads to disrupt his campaign, but pay for physical violence? Don't be stupid please. It would seem you are too easily manipulated. Do you know the meaning of the word "ostensibly?"

Where do you get your news? The controversial evidence was revealed in undercover video not emails lol. Unbelievable that you can speak so vehemently about something and not have even the basic facts down.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Once again, another post with no substance.

 

[Tom B]

You are a Kool-Aid drinker. I would not expect you to understand the substance of my post.