Election 2016 (Page 9)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-08-03 9:35 AM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood The terror threat from ISIS over the last 5 years is massively different than the terrorist threat we face today. I'm not even sure if ISIS existed 5 years ago. We have been pretty fortunate in the US in large part from the work of our law enforcement communities, but also due to the big water wall between us and the middle east. Europe is reeling from terror attacks due to the incursion of Muslims from "hate mill" nations. It's naive to pretend that we can import 10's of thousands of people from these same nations (vetted or not) and have no repercussions. It's not naive, it's common sense. A terrorist coming here as a refugee is literally the dumbest way possible for them to try to enter this country. First, it's a crap shoot that the UN would even pick that terrorist to be settled in the US, and not some other country. Then, priority is given to women, children, victims of torture, etc. That's followed up by 2 years of sitting in a refugee camp, waiting, while you're put through the most thorough background check of anyone. If at any point there's even a single red flag, that person gets booted out of the refugee program. Meanwhile, ISIS can send someone in to get a tourist visa in a matter of days. Or get one of their French guys to hop on a plane with their passport, no visa required. Five of the seven Paris attackers last year could have walked in to the airport, paid for a ticket to the US and flown here that day. For that matter, it would be quicker and easier to buy a boat and sail across the ocean to get here than to make it as a refugee. There have been as many vampire attacks on US land as there have been terrorist attacks committed by refugees. And yet not a single politician has lifted a finger to try and protect us from vampires that want to enter our country and destroy our way of life. We do need to be protected from Vampires as well. |
|
2016-08-03 9:55 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood The terror threat from ISIS over the last 5 years is massively different than the terrorist threat we face today. I'm not even sure if ISIS existed 5 years ago. We have been pretty fortunate in the US in large part from the work of our law enforcement communities, but also due to the big water wall between us and the middle east. Europe is reeling from terror attacks due to the incursion of Muslims from "hate mill" nations. It's naive to pretend that we can import 10's of thousands of people from these same nations (vetted or not) and have no repercussions. It's not naive, it's common sense. A terrorist coming here as a refugee is literally the dumbest way possible for them to try to enter this country. First, it's a crap shoot that the UN would even pick that terrorist to be settled in the US, and not some other country. Then, priority is given to women, children, victims of torture, etc. That's followed up by 2 years of sitting in a refugee camp, waiting, while you're put through the most thorough background check of anyone. If at any point there's even a single red flag, that person gets booted out of the refugee program. Meanwhile, ISIS can send someone in to get a tourist visa in a matter of days. Or get one of their French guys to hop on a plane with their passport, no visa required. Five of the seven Paris attackers last year could have walked in to the airport, paid for a ticket to the US and flown here that day. For that matter, it would be quicker and easier to buy a boat and sail across the ocean to get here than to make it as a refugee. There have been as many vampire attacks on US land as there have been terrorist attacks committed by refugees. And yet not a single politician has lifted a finger to try and protect us from vampires that want to enter our country and destroy our way of life. We do need to be protected from Vampires as well.
They are everywhere. I won't go to a baseball game anymore without some garlic in my pocket and Coors Lite (silver bullet). |
2016-08-05 11:25 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Q for the group: Why was Trump in Maine yesterday? Seems like a waste of his ever shrinking timeline to right the ship and make some gains in battleground states. |
2016-08-09 3:34 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Q for the group: Why was Trump in Maine yesterday? Seems like a waste of his ever shrinking timeline to right the ship and make some gains in battleground states. You're assuming he has to right the ship. ;-) You guys listen to Trumps economic speech yesterday? I thought it was really good and his plan would cut my taxes substantially for the business which would enable me to hire at least two more people with no net overhead hit. (and most definitely that's what I will do)
|
2016-08-09 3:38 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Also, did you see the Orlando terrorist's Dad was at Hillary's event last night cheering her on and endorsing her. Hillary of course isn't disavowing him. My personal thoughts is that they're trying to set a trap for Trump. Get him to bite on attacking another "Muslim" so they can attack him and distract the media from his economic message for the next week. |
2016-08-09 7:01 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Also, did you see the Orlando terrorist's Dad was at Hillary's event last night cheering her on and endorsing her. Hillary of course isn't disavowing him. My personal thoughts is that they're trying to set a trap for Trump. Get him to bite on attacking another "Muslim" so they can attack him and distract the media from his economic message for the next week. Perhaps I missed something...was the dad involved in or have any advanced knowledge of the massacre? Why would he need to be "disavowed?" |
|
2016-08-09 7:12 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by tuwood Perhaps I missed something...was the dad involved in or have any advanced knowledge of the massacre? Why would he need to be "disavowed?" ...and why do you have "muslim" in quotes? just curious. ...btw, I don't think "traps" have to be set for Trump to say something ignorant. Also, did you see the Orlando terrorist's Dad was at Hillary's event last night cheering her on and endorsing her. Hillary of course isn't disavowing him. My personal thoughts is that they're trying to set a trap for Trump. Get him to bite on attacking another "Muslim" so they can attack him and distract the media from his economic message for the next week. the "muslim" quotes was simply because they try to rope Trump into a muslim hater. I think this guy is a pretty obvious muslim and reading it again I think the quotes are a little confusing so I disavow them. As for his Dad, as far as I know he wasn't involved in the shooting, but according to CBS he is a well known hater of America and a Taliban supporter (who kills Americans btw). David Duke just hates black people and that's more than enough for the media to demand Trump disavow him so I'm assuming Clinton should disavow somebody who hates all Americans right?
|
2016-08-09 9:20 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Alrighty then... Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source! I'm sure this will be all over the media tomorrow. /rollseyes |
2016-08-10 10:08 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Q for the group: Why was Trump in Maine yesterday? Seems like a waste of his ever shrinking timeline to right the ship and make some gains in battleground states. You're assuming he has to right the ship. ;-) You guys listen to Trumps economic speech yesterday? I thought it was really good and his plan would cut my taxes substantially for the business which would enable me to hire at least two more people with no net overhead hit. (and most definitely that's what I will do)
Oh, he doesn't HAVE to change anything - if he is content with winning say 190 electoral votes.... And based on his latest gaffe yesterday (inciting violence among 2nd amendment folks), he doesn't appear to be. Have you looked at the latest battleground polling? If he doesn't win PA, his chances are almost nil to get to 270, and he is down almost double digits there! |
2016-08-10 10:15 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Oh, he doesn't HAVE to change anything - if he is content with winning say 190 electoral votes.... And based on his latest gaffe yesterday (inciting violence among 2nd amendment folks), he doesn't appear to be. Have you looked at the latest battleground polling? If he doesn't win PA, his chances are almost nil to get to 270, and he is down almost double digits there! Originally posted by ejshowers Q for the group: Why was Trump in Maine yesterday? Seems like a waste of his ever shrinking timeline to right the ship and make some gains in battleground states. You're assuming he has to right the ship. ;-) You guys listen to Trumps economic speech yesterday? I thought it was really good and his plan would cut my taxes substantially for the business which would enable me to hire at least two more people with no net overhead hit. (and most definitely that's what I will do)
I do agree that his political inexperience is showing somewhat in regard to allowing the media to push stupid things like his statement yesterday. They'd much rather do that then talk about anything substantive he's saying because we all know we want the most politically correct and liked person in office. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant. On a bipartisan note, do you think we've ever had two candidates that are more primed for big October surprises than these two? haha |
2016-08-10 10:20 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Hey now. Don't count Hilary out of shooting yourself in the foot contest. Another email scandal about potential brides for favors is starting to pop up. |
|
2016-08-10 10:49 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by chirunner134 Hey now. Don't count Hilary out of shooting yourself in the foot contest. Another email scandal about potential brides for favors is starting to pop up. She did get caught in yet another email lie yesterday, but of course everyone would rather lead the news twisting Trumps words around. Hillary yet again was caught lying in the "i've handed over all emails" lie. Judicial Watch just released a bunch more yesterday that they obtained through a lawsuit that weren't turned over by Clinton. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/
|
2016-08-10 1:01 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I do agree that his political inexperience is showing somewhat in regard to allowing the media to push stupid things like his statement yesterday. Dude, he knows exactly what he's saying. I can think of many descriptions for him, but "media moron" is not one of them. This is a guy who thinks there is no such thing as bad press. The way he said it may have seemed just offhand, but I guarantee he carefully thought that out and worded it for his desired impact. You'll note that any of these inciteful comments he makes (2nd amendment, asking Russia to dig into emails, whatever) are all carefully worded in such a way that he's not doing anything illegal. If he were truly a moron speaking in a flippant manner, he would've been in a lot more trouble by now. |
2016-08-10 1:04 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone I do agree that his political inexperience is showing somewhat in regard to allowing the media to push stupid things like his statement yesterday. Dude, he knows exactly what he's saying. I can think of many descriptions for him, but "media moron" is not one of them. This is a guy who thinks there is no such thing as bad press. The way he said it may have seemed just offhand, but I guarantee he carefully thought that out and worded it for his desired impact. You'll note that any of these inciteful comments he makes (2nd amendment, asking Russia to dig into emails, whatever) are all carefully worded in such a way that he's not doing anything illegal. If he were truly a moron speaking in a flippant manner, he would've been in a lot more trouble by now. I do agree with you that he uses double entendre type language that can be interpreted in more than one way. |
2016-08-10 3:09 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. |
2016-08-10 3:22 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. ...because they didn't have sufficient evidence? I don't get what you're mad about. |
|
2016-08-10 3:24 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Clinton campaign. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut for a couple news cycles, maybe the media would start running stories about Clinton. So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. |
2016-08-10 3:27 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by tuwood Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Clinton campaign. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut for a couple news cycles, maybe the media would start running stories about Clinton. So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. Now this is something I agree with. Like her or not. If she simply declines to comment on things and keeps her mouth shut, trump will run himself into the ground. |
2016-08-10 3:34 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by tuwood Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Clinton campaign. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut for a couple news cycles, maybe the media would start running stories about Clinton. So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. Now this is something I agree with. Like her or not. If she simply declines to comment on things and keeps her mouth shut, trump will run himself into the ground. Dave, I'm gonna get the 2nd amendment folks after you....I guess. |
2016-08-10 3:41 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. ...because they didn't have sufficient evidence? I don't get what you're mad about.
The not so funny thing is, there is always a trail of dead bodies that follow the Clinton scandals. Granted some of them are conspiracy theoristical (I just coined that new word) but some are just way to coincidental. Vince Foster comes to mind......guy committed suicide by shooting himself 4 times in the back of the head. I just read today that the guy that leaked the DNC emails was murdered in a 'robbery' but they did not take his wallet or anything else. |
2016-08-10 3:51 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by tuwood Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Clinton campaign. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut for a couple news cycles, maybe the media would start running stories about Clinton. So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. And Clinton is the worst thing that ever happened to Clintons campaign. hah |
|
2016-08-10 3:57 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Equally true, which is why Trump needs to just shut his stupid mouth.Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by tuwood Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Clinton campaign. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut for a couple news cycles, maybe the media would start running stories about Clinton. So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. And Clinton is the worst thing that ever happened to Clintons campaign. hah |
2016-08-10 4:03 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. ...because they didn't have sufficient evidence? I don't get what you're mad about.
The not so funny thing is, there is always a trail of dead bodies that follow the Clinton scandals. Granted some of them are conspiracy theoristical (I just coined that new word) but some are just way to coincidental. Vince Foster comes to mind......guy committed suicide by shooting himself 4 times in the back of the head. I just read today that the guy that leaked the DNC emails was murdered in a 'robbery' but they did not take his wallet or anything else. and the "robbery guy" (who is from Nebraska btw) was shot in the back with no defensive wounds of any kind, as in execution style. Oh, and Wikilieaks essentially identified him as the source of the DNC emails, but other than that, totally random. Now to be clear, there's no evidence of any kind to suggest that Hillary or anyone in the DNC had anything to do with his murder. It's just very interesting alongside many other mysterious deaths surrounding Hillary. Even more interesting, there's been three DNC folks who just so happened to be making waves about Hillary and the DNC that have mysteriously died since the emails were leaked. I truly try to stay out of the conspiracy camps, but it gets harder and harder with all the dead bodies showing up around the Clinton's through the years and they almost all happen to be investigating or in the process of exposing something big when they're found dead. huh? Seriously take any other president: HW Bush, Obama, W Bush, Reagan, or honestly any other political figure. Do they have any bodies at all surrounding them? I mean if it's truly random then it should be fairly common right? oh well, none of it will get covered so I'm just wasting my virtual ink.
|
2016-08-10 4:06 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. ...because they didn't have sufficient evidence? I don't get what you're mad about. I'm not mad at all. So the FBI had all the evidence in the world against Hillary lying about the emails and exposing secrets, but didn't recommend anything to the FBI. Yet, when they actually do make a recommendation (secretly I might add) earlier in the year you fully believe the DOJ that they had "insufficient evidence". BTW, next to wasteful spending this is actually my number one issue with Washington. The foxes are policing the foxes. No matter who is in power there is absolutely zero chance anyone of significance will be held accountable when laws are broken. The head of the DOJ is appointed by Obama and reports to him. Do you think she's ever going to bring charges against him or anyone he adamantly supports without buy in? This is a problem no matter who is in power because Bush had several issues that he crossed the line on as well and nothing ever happened. It's absolutely BS!! |
2016-08-10 4:17 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood So with the email investigation the FBI declined to request charges be brought against Hillary. However, it appears earlier this year the FBI requested that the DOJ open an investigation against the Clinton foundation and they declined to do so. hmm http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html
I bet I know what the lead story on every news outlet would be tonight if it was recently discovered that the FBI recommended an investigation of Trump to the DOJ earlier this year. ...because they didn't have sufficient evidence? I don't get what you're mad about.
The not so funny thing is, there is always a trail of dead bodies that follow the Clinton scandals. Granted some of them are conspiracy theoristical (I just coined that new word) but some are just way to coincidental. Vince Foster comes to mind......guy committed suicide by shooting himself 4 times in the back of the head. I just read today that the guy that leaked the DNC emails was murdered in a 'robbery' but they did not take his wallet or anything else. and the "robbery guy" (who is from Nebraska btw) was shot in the back with no defensive wounds of any kind, as in execution style. Oh, and Wikilieaks essentially identified him as the source of the DNC emails, but other than that, totally random. Now to be clear, there's no evidence of any kind to suggest that Hillary or anyone in the DNC had anything to do with his murder. It's just very interesting alongside many other mysterious deaths surrounding Hillary. Even more interesting, there's been three DNC folks who just so happened to be making waves about Hillary and the DNC that have mysteriously died since the emails were leaked. I truly try to stay out of the conspiracy camps, but it gets harder and harder with all the dead bodies showing up around the Clinton's through the years and they almost all happen to be investigating or in the process of exposing something big when they're found dead. huh? Seriously take any other president: HW Bush, Obama, W Bush, Reagan, or honestly any other political figure. Do they have any bodies at all surrounding them? I mean if it's truly random then it should be fairly common right? oh well, none of it will get covered so I'm just wasting my virtual ink.
|
|
2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | |||
Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | |||