Asked what he has in common with his daughter, Trump answered ‘sex’
Click here for reuse options!With both of them sitting down with Williams, the host asked them to play a game known as ‘Fave Five,’ where Williams asks her guests some questions.
In response to what she had in common with her father, Ivanka gave a relatively standard answer, saying golf and real estate are the two interests she shares with her dad.
However, when it was the real estate mogul’s turn, he brought up sex, quickly saying he shouldn’t because she was his daughter.
“Well, I was going to say sex, but I can’t relate that to her,” Trump told Williams while pointing to Ivanka.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
472 responses to Asked what he has in common with his daughter, Trump answered ‘sex’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 19:21
hell, he even commented on Tiffany’s breast when she was only ONE!
burqa October 26th, 2016 at 20:31
Lorainie should like that, given his/her interest in child rape porn, expressed earlier on these pages….
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:48
Well NOW, she has Two. :+) At least that is what the pictures indicate.
lolana October 26th, 2016 at 19:40
this is the disturbing moment of all disturbing moments on record w/those 2
Larry Schmitt October 26th, 2016 at 19:47
He’s not even human.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:47
Good Heavens, Are you Just finding that out ??? LOL :+)
katkelly57 October 26th, 2016 at 19:54
I have a shovel….just need a plot of land far, far away from humanity so he can’t find us in case it rises.
P.S.
I could use some help digging…
Larry Schmitt October 26th, 2016 at 20:08
I’m there.
katkelly57 October 26th, 2016 at 21:53
Thanks pal!
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:46
I’ll bring a one yard Excavator.
katkelly57 October 27th, 2016 at 02:20
Wunnerful!
The job will be done much quicker.
Warman1138 October 27th, 2016 at 07:47
Nah, you don’t need a shovel. Just a wood chipper and a manure spreader, buzzards and worms will do the rest.
burqa October 26th, 2016 at 20:29
Is this the one he said is “a piece of ass”?
I’ll bet this cretin eats mashed potatoes with his hands….
Larry Schmitt October 26th, 2016 at 21:10
But it takes him all day, because he has little tiny hands.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:24
yes she is the one. and the other one Tiffany, the youngest, is the one who he talked about her breast being an asset when she was only 1.
burqa October 26th, 2016 at 20:32
When it comes to sex, those Republicans are freaks, FREAKS, I tell ya!
Suzanne McFly October 26th, 2016 at 20:36
And not in a good way.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:45
A Little Spice
Makes Life Nice.
But, then again
Republicans don’t Grin.
Suzanne McFly October 27th, 2016 at 07:05
Cute poem :)
RightThinkingOne October 26th, 2016 at 21:51
It is deplorable that the media debases itself by getting viewers to focus in on sex in order to decide to vote against Trump. It also shows the mentality of many voters if they are swayed by salacious garbage.
Jack E Raynbeau October 26th, 2016 at 22:41
It really is disgusting. Using his own words to tear him down.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 00:17
No. Emphasizing salacious stuff. Those who are attending to it, letting it tear them away from the Court, taxes, education, etc., show how mindless their voting is.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 00:42
The court is most important. That’s why I’m voting for Hillary. As for the rest of it, Trump doesn’t have a clue.
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 00:56
i have this feeling that she is going to nominate Obama’s pick. talk about in your face
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:30
Hillary is against our Constitution and Rule of Law. Didn’t you hear how she will nominate justices? Did you? I did. It was against our Constitution and Rule of Law.
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 01:42
we heard her. but, you didn’t hear tRump. tRump wants to nominate assholes. Hillary doesn’t. tRump wants to get rid of the 1st amendment if anyone says quotes him saying he’s a rapist and asshole.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:56
Wrong.
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 02:43
RIGHT!
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 03:58
wow. you so sound like tRump when he’s been busted for lying. it’s epic stupidity and i’m LMAFO!
fahvel October 27th, 2016 at 05:11
that’s depth with reason – felicitations.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 01:48
If she’s elected she can nominate justices. No nomination can be considered contrary to the constitution. I hope she nominates her husband. Nice try skippy.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:56
The basis on which she will nominate is against our Founding principles and Rule of Law.
fahvel October 27th, 2016 at 05:11
cool – would you please explain in detail how it is against the principles and rules. Details and specifics now!!!
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:05
I first need to know if you know how she intends to nominate justices. She was clear several times. Please check.
Thank you.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 08:10
First you said Constitution. What gives? Nobody cares about your imaginary rule of law.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:08
It is not “imaginary.” It is the basis of liberty.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 23:07
And it is in effect. The winner of the election will nominate a justice. It should have been a done deal but the obstructionists don’t care about the rule of law.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:03
If Hillary gets elected – and the odds are with her – she will nominate far, far worse people than the Community Organizer did.
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 00:24
you support a child rapist and racist and fraud and bigot and pathological liar and people are saying he even had sex with his daughter, you’re gross and disgusting. he even went to parties where teen girls 14/15 were given drugs and molested and he befriended child traffickers. you people have no shame what-so-ever. but, emails. fk off.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:33
Interesting in what fascinates you and on what you focus. Are you a Jerry Springer fan, too?
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 01:03
why do you support this behavior from someone who wants to be the president? the racist thing is clear, we know you are. but, damn, do you have a fuckin’ conscience at all? doesn’t anything this POS does bother you?
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 01:23
Can I caution you on the definition of insanity ? ;)
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 01:29
So, how often is Jerry Springer on television these days?
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 01:36
How about, just for grins and giggles, you answer her question ?
You can tell when a questions is being posed to you by looking at the end of a sentence.
Oh never mind I’m to tired to wait for you not to.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 01:38
You are surely joking. You really expect someone to answer such vulgar, base, set-up questions? You cannot be serious.
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 10:24
why do you support this behavior from someone who wants to be the president? how’s that ?
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 16:35
that’s because he can’t answer it. to justify his support means to accept this behavior. so i don’t know why he just won’t.
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 20:37
I thought I would try asking nicely ;) just in case… ;)
whatthe46 October 29th, 2016 at 02:08
and he still hasn’t answered. see. it’s not how you pose the question, it’s the question in and of itself that he has a problem with.
Jack E Raynbeau October 28th, 2016 at 00:37
Considering that what you call worse, I call better, it looks like a win. I will look forward to your incessant whining.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:39
I can only conclude, then that:
You are against Rule of Law.
You are against our Constitution.
You are against our founding principles.
Jack E Raynbeau October 28th, 2016 at 00:43
You can choose whatever you will. The fact remains that you are an idiot.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:46
Well, if by “idiot” you mean someone who understands our Constitution, someone who understands Rule of Law and its necessity to have Liberty, then I am guilty of being an “idiot.”
Jack E Raynbeau October 28th, 2016 at 07:40
By idiot I mean that you make claims and offer nothing in support of your claims.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:18
You have no demonstrated even a basic understanding of our Constitution. It is unfortunate.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:18
going off a bit towards the reich again, -one.
POTUS Hillary will nominate wonderful SCOTUS justices who will be approved/disapproved by a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
POTUS Reagan did the same.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:17
Robert Bork should have become a justice.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:21
He was given a fair hearing and rejected. Fully constitutional.
What’s your beef?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:48
It was not a fair hearing. It was a lynching. Do you know the history of it?
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:51
I do, and the man was questioned by representatives from either of the two major parties about his interpretation of US laws, his political leanings as they effected them, what he thought of different past SCOTUS decisions…
All were found wanting.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:54
No, he was a scholar and would have made one of the best. You do not know the history. Tie in Kennedy and his relationship to Nixon in the past. Add a bit of Alger Hiss in the mix. (I won’t tell you which Kennedy. That is up to you to investigate.)
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:13
Wait, wait…you’re bringing Anthony Kennedy and Nixon into this,to explain Bork’s loss? Or are you saying that Ted Kennedy and Hiss were in cahoots?
Either way,that’s not a rabbit hole,that’s a badger’s den you’ve fallen down into.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:04
You got the wrong Kennedy! I was certain you did not know about what happened.
Hirightnow October 28th, 2016 at 00:14
There’s a third?
Bobby’s been dead a few decades….
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:20
So, you don’t know.
And it looks like you don’t even know when the Bork nomination took place!
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 23:07
Yes. I was properly horrified when he was nominated. Were you even alive then?
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:01
Bork should have been appointed. You do not know the history of it, especially related to one of the Kennedys. I suggest you look it up.
Robert Bork wrote that “a legitimate Court must be controlled by principles exterior to the will of the justices,” and “When constitutional materials do not clearly specify the value to be preferred, there is no principled way to prefer any claimed human value to any other. The judge must stick close to the text… and not construct new rights.” Bork also said that “[Liberals] propose various systems of morality that judges must use to create NEW constitutional rights”
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:15
This is pretty concise reasoning why Bork was borked:
” They did it with Robert Bork, because his paper record was so horrible. Bork didn’t believe the First Amendment applied to anything except political speech. He didn’t believe there was a right to privacy in the Constitution. His writings, his law review articles, were so out of the mainstream in any real sense that he was an easy target. “
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:08
You could not reply to the previous facts. I knew you could not, of course. And Bork supported Original Understanding which the basis for Rule of Law.
You did a Google Search. I read, observed and did research. It was TED Kennedy that was out for Bork, and if you look at who led – and how the drunken, adulterous murderer led – the attacks on Bork, and trace it back to precisely WHY, then you just might get some insight into those incredible attacks. At that time, who investigated what VHSs a person was watching? That is how vicious the murdering, drunken, adulterous coward TED was.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 21:52
Settled down yet?
First of all, I didn’t know that “a Google Search” was inferior to your reading tea leaves. Your attack on Ted Kennedy is totally uncalled for and it’s beneath even addressing.
Here is a short dispassionate reasoning for you to digest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060601800.html
And here is a longer piece that more completely explains Bork:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/robert-borks-tragedy/?_r=0
Pay special attention in the latter piece to the interchange between Hatch and Bork. Quite an eye opener. I thank God that Anthony Kennedy, warts and all, made the SCOTUS unanimously after Bork’s failing in his quest.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 22:35
You are wrong, and it ends with this one quote:
“[Bork’s nomination] forces liberals like me to confront a reality we don’t want to confront, which is that we are depending in large part on the least democratic institution…in government to defend what it is we no longer are able to win out there in the electorate.”
-Hodding Carter, press spokesman for Carter
But another:
“If this were carried out as an internal Senate battle, we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose.”
-Ann Lewis
Case closed, Christopher!
whatthe46 October 30th, 2016 at 22:54
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a14e0c99dc465be459958bd0e75296afca831af645d6ed5d1a5f9377795c67fe.jpg
he’s got another problem aside from the rape case and the fake U case, both have court dates. now, he’s looking at criminal charges for racketeering regarding the fake foundation. such feel good stories about someone who is getting his just dessert. no WH, and nice state silver braces.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 07:17
Wrong again, again due to you jumping to conclusions of which you haven’t a clue.
My name is Christian.
And those quotes are cherry picked from outliers. Nice try.
Hodding Carter’s boss, Jimmy Carter, was strongly opposed to Bork.
The Ann Lewis quote merely referred to strategizing, not to whether Bork should have been nominated.
Again, nice try.
Case closed, indeed.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:19
No. Bork would have been one of the best – if not the best – justice on the Court.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 20:58
I like to laugh.
Thanks for the laugh of the day! Incredible!
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:14
No, he would have. You should read his explanations.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:17
I have read enough of Bork for this lifetime, thank you very much.
An awful, awful man with awful, awful opinions.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:26
No. His criteria were constitutionally sound. But they did not “sound” correct, so his answers could be distorted and twisted. For example, it is constitutionally correct to defer abortion laws to the respective states, but it can be twisted to “sound” like one is against women having control of their bodies, being anti-women, sexist, and other dishonest distortions.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:39
No.
It is NOT constitutionally correct to defer abortion laws to the respective states.
I have been down this road many a time with “state’s rights” people, and I have no desire to relitigate this with you. Thank God the Roe v. Wade decision came down, and thank God it has not been overturned.
I don’t care how you perceive it. I know from experience it’s aimless for me to expect that I could convince you. Please save your time trying to convert ME on this; you won’t succeed.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:40
It is constitutionally correct. You have no comprehension of Original Understanding. Do you know about “penumbras” and “emanations” in relation to this?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:41
“Been down that road?” Translation: I cannot offer a cogent rejoinder.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:00
Just did. And also told you it’s fruitless to argue the point as I’ve done many times before.
You want abortion banned and thus you think it’s a states’ rights issue. That’s the perennial conservative position on EVERYTHING they want to kill.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:04
No, you have simply refused to back that up. It is that simple. And obvious.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:44
Refused to back WHAT up? Abortion?
Roe v. Wade decided DEFINITIVELY that this was an issue of national concern; the US had the right to decide on this as a nation. If you don’t realize this, you’re gone, baby, gone.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:51
OK, I will indulge you in your game just once, but not again: States’ powers.
Penumbras. Emanations.
Do you know to what I am referring?
You do not understand our Constitution. First of all, by “the US,” do you mean the people? If so, you have contradicted yourself big time because the courts are not the people. Don’t you know that?
Or by “the US,” do you omit, “we the people….,” and defer to the decisions of 5 people for the rest of us?
So, you actually think that we “decided it as a nation.” Amazing. I really would like to see you provide a clear and cogent rationale and explanation on how you drew THAT conclusion! WOW!
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:30
Wow. I’m arguing with what? Come back when you want to stop raging and start focusing.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:15
I focused. You evaded. Typical.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:07
Wrong.
Example: Obergefell. The definition of marriage should be up to the respective states if we are to adhere to our Constitution. However, DOMA – signed by Clinton – was a NATIONAL law, a federal law, so even though many, if not most, Conservatives would be against homosexual marriage, the Court was constitutionally correct in ruling AGAINST Doma. Do you understand the reason? It is not in terms of Leftist activism, but in terms of constitutionality, limited powers, and states’ rights in relation to our national government. Do you? Or are you just going to say, “I have argued that before?”
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:52
So you’re brighter than the five in the majority for what is constitutional.
Funny how you don’t agree with Obergefell, but you probably high five ignoring precedent with the Heller decision.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:57
Again: You are not reading what I posted. I won’t repeat it. You are either not reading, not understanding, or deliberately distorting. In fact, you deliberately omitted something in that to which I TWICE referred.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:20
Poor baby. Go to bed. It’ll be better in the morning.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:09
You are now lying. Did I say I want abortion banned?
And why don’t you respond to questions about “penumbras” and such?
I know the reason, of course. But go ahead and do a quick Google Search.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:55
Usually people who want abortion rights decided by the states want abortion banned. If you don’t, my apologies.
But WTH? Penumbras? WTH are you talking about?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:58
Justice Blackmun held that abortion is a fundamental right because it falls under the “penumbra” of the right to privacy.
I knew you did not know. You are spouting the party line.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:19
I did not know of that quote because…
The same reason you are not aware of other quotes that I could pull out that you’re unfamiliar with. Talk about silly games! Look in the mirror, dude.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:14
Because…. you do not know about the Court decision. You only parrot what you think you are supposed to parrot.
That statement, and another, show exactly that to which I pointed out seven times. But you do not know how that term applies and how it was used. Anyone who has some information about that decision knows that word and how it was used, PLUS the other specific word to which I referred and you evaded (or did not even read or understand).
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:13
“PLUS the other specific word…”
What are you, a pre-law major filled with little factoids known only to fanboys? Again, settle down, have a smoke, whatever it takes to bring you back down.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 18:45
It is not a “little factiod” for anyone who has cursory knowledge of the decision. That is the key word in the case. Again: The KEY word.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 19:56
A KEY word! It’s a KEY word!
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 20:09
Yes.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:35
Yes.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 20:10
Why did you not respond to the “US” that I queried? (“US” meaning “we” in YOUR statement before, and about which I asked.)
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:34
What a mess you are, babbling on and on.
Come back when you want to make sense.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 23:00
“Usually,” so that means you KNOW what I do or do not want? And you deliberately left out my statement about DOMA. No reference or comment on that for OBVIOUS reasons.
And you have written nothing, absolutely nothing, about states’ powers (they ain’t “rights,” pal, but “powers” which you would know if you read our Constitution). except that you have done that before elsewhere, etc.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:16
You want my opinion on DOMA? I didn’t address it because it was a side issue. I will now. DOMA was a big mistake, and I didn’t agree with it at all.
Do I now label Clinton as a DINO? Absolutely not. I disagreed with him, but don’t go crazy like you Republicans do with the RINO label.
Right now, Orange Crush is gutting Paul Ryan. Your whole party is waging uncivil war on itself. Your constant belittling of the Dems shows your ignorance of your own party.
You need to get up to speed on the right’s lexicon. It forever talks of states’ rights. Yell at them, not me. Besides, this is the definition of states rights: “the rights and powers held by individual US states rather than by the federal government.”
Now, don’t you feel foolish? Of course you don’t. You’re beyond shame.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:11
No. You are not reading, or you are not understanding. I never asked your opinion about DOMA. Not ever. Not once. I wrote something else, and you are either not reading, deliberately distorting, or lying.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:17
You crowed because I ignored the mention. Read your posts.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 18:46
No, it is a repeat performance from you.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 19:55
Back for a repeat performance!
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:50
Down, boy, down!
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:12
I never was criticizing Clinton. I merely pointed out that it was around for a long time, and a Liberal put it in motion.
If you read or comprehended what was written, you would have known it was about the Court, not about your position on DOMA and nothing about Clinton, either.
But you are either not reading or are deliberately distorting and evading.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:16
No. Read your post mentioning “penumbra” and you will understand how you come across: as a juvenile with a secret decoder ring, smirking to yourself that you’ve just mentioned a word absent of context.
And the reason you mentioned the word was because you wanted to be pedantic.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 18:45
No, it is a KEY word. It shows something, along with the other KEY word I mentioned about five times.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 19:56
It’s a KEY word that will unlock the universe, I tells ya! (You’re prelaw, right? From Moskva?)
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 20:09
No. It is from understanding the justice’s opinion. If one is going to make assertions on a subject, the mature and responsible thing is to know a bit about it. ANYONE who has done a cursory look at the decision knows AUTOMATICALLY why someone would refer to “penumbras” and “emanations.” It would be AUTOMATIC because those words are essential, and the key words in the decision. Without them, there would not be that decision.
This reveals quite a bit about you.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:43
Dude, I work for a living as a dentist, not a lawyer. My wife is the lawyer; she would be able to school you on any legal term.
I understand what “penumbra” and “emanations” mean in the general sense. You hanging onto those words as “gotchas” are silly affectations on your part, and quite sad. Trot around in your sad dance.
The greater issue is what a radical Bork was and why he deserved to be denied the position on the bench. As I told you before, his positions were horrific.
“They’re KEY words!” Keep screaming if it lets you sleep better.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:05
Not “gotchas” at all. Again (Seventh repetition): Anyone who knows a bit about the decision, anyone who is in the least concerned or interested in HOW the decision was rationalized, knows those words and how they were absolutely essential in coming to the conclusion.
If a person mentions the Roe case and does not know the reference to those two words, one can conclude – with absolute certainty – that he does not know anything about how the decision was reached.
The person may be in support of abortion, and that is not the issue. The person does not know anything about the decision.
And that, sir, reflects on most of your other assertions. It reflects on how you base your assertions.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 22:15
Wrong again. And again I must remind you that I agree with the majority, not the conservatives you cast your lot with.
Keep blathering about “tactics” and you getting tired. It’s all bs.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:23
Of course you agree with the “majority” on the court. All I said (11th repetition) is that you do not understand the decision at all. You never looked at it. You only know that abortion is legal. And you referred to “us” in saying that the American people chose it, remember?
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 07:15
Millionth and one repetition. Absolutism. Tired. Look at my posts. Argle bargle. Read my book. You don’t understand Bork.
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 19:03
You did not answer the specific and pointed questions. I was sure you would not.
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 19:20
You did not answer the specific and blunt questions. I was sure you would not.
Look at my posts. I knew Bork; I went to school with Bork. And you are no Robert Bork because you are ignoring KEY words! KEY words! KEY words like absolutism – I will not play games concerning calling a lie a lie because that is absolutist!
Ever notice how Drudge rhymes with sludge? Of course you didn’t because you’ve ignored KEY words! KEY words like penumbra that I’ve picked because I can be pedantic. And “pedantic” is a KEY word!
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 19:24
Nope. I quoted you. You are now trying to avoid it. That quote had nothing to do with Bork. Nothing. You are only avoiding it. I expected this. You denied you wrote something, and I found it. Quoted YOUR words.
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 19:42
Nope. I quoted you. You are now trying to avoid it. That quote had a KEY word, and you cannot escape the penumbra of its impact. Run as fast as you can, but you cannot hide. You denied how Drudge lied and you hid behind absolutism.
This WILL NOT stand!
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 19:58
You avoided it. Just as I predicted. You spout strong opinions, but are unable to back them up, or even explain them. Typical – and classic – was the one about states’ powers: “I have already done that elsewhere.”
If I do not respond to your posts to me, remember the obvious reason: If your post actually does deal with something other than strong assertions without any backing, or what you think are clever insults, I will respond, of course.
Otherwise…..
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 20:48
You avoided it, just as I posted on Breitbart. Breitbart, a site that I absolutely idolize as much as Drudge! Your denial is not just a river in Egypt. Remember that: denial! It’s a KEY word! A KEY word that rests just under the penumbra!
You MUST respond to me because it’s your biological imperative, much as Donnie Trump can never let any slight go, a characteristic he learned from our ultimate role model, Sarah Palin.
Otherwise…
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 21:16
Not true, and you know it.
Penumbra
Emanations
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 21:55
Not true and you still don’t know it.
Yellow
Orange
Ultramarine
Red
Ecru
Neutral
Orange
Teal
Vermillion
Ebony
Rust
Yellow
Black
Rose
Indigo
Green
Heliotrope
Taupe
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:28
I really dislike digging up what posters have written when they start games of denial and deflection as you are. I can understand not remembering some points of what another poster has written, but your claiming you do not remember your own??? But *I* do? WOW.
So, I foolishly went to the trouble and wasted time finding it, knowing full well that you will continue with distortions, deflections and games. Here is what YOU wrote:
“Roe v. Wade decided DEFINITIVELY that this was an issue of national concern; the US had the right to decide on this as a nation.”
So, you deliberately avoided answering my question! I asked several pointed questions SPECIFICALLY to this, and you started your game playing, pretending you did not know about it, etc.
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 07:16
Millionth and two repetition. Absolutism. Tired. Look at my posts. Argle bargle. Read my book. You don’t understand Bork. I really dislike having to dig up what you’ve written. You’ve avoided answering my question! I tire of your game playing!
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:43
It is not “how I perceive it.” It is about our Constitution and Rule of Law.
I have no intention in “converting” you. I know it is not possible. However, I do feel a sense of obligation to disabuse myths, illogical statements, and uninformed parroting of the party line. After all, perhaps others will read these exchanges.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:01
Don’t flatter yourself. You advertise to the world your nonsense right away with your silly St. Ronnie avatar.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:09
You did it yet again.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:56
Whuuuuut?
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:34
No he wouldn’t have.
You remind me of a right winger who kept pestering me to read some book that changed his life. He never realized what a pest he was.
Don’t turn into him.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:39
Nope. I explained some for you. Study up on what Rule of Law is.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:02
Liberals were horrible to Bork, even obtained movie rental records. Reality is that on the DC Circuit Court, Bork was in majority 95% of time and Supreme Court did not reverse a single decision and six times adopted his dissenting opinions. Bork sided with minority plaintiffs in 7 of 8 cases.
Let me know your indepth knowledge about how Kennedy was involved, and why he got so involved.
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:13
Just as I thought.
You do oppo research criticizing Democrats for doing oppo research.
Do you have any self-awareness at all?
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 23:05
Merrick Garland should have become a justice. Stop whining.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:20
Say, what do you think about the Republican plan to not even replace Scalia, leaving the SCOTUS at eight justices?
Wouldn’t that give our Founding Fathers a tummy ache?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:47
No, that is a possible option.
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 10:20
By “our” you mean your. It’s not a presidents job to put up folks whom YOU approve of solely. Get over yourself.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:31
That *I* approve? You mean it is of no importance to nominate justices who will adhere to Rule of Law, that is just *my* personal desire? Please do not post to me any longer.
Thank you.
oldfart October 30th, 2016 at 20:15
Avail yourself with the block feature, I’m not going anywhere…cupcake.
whatthe46 October 30th, 2016 at 23:19
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4674da93a42679825ce67db77c5c54109b55b67909c80e832bb571b8e27fe4e7.jpg
looks like tRump doesn’t care a damn thing about rules or the law.
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 02:43
him or Obama or Obama’s choice. EPIC!
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:15
I too think former POTUSes would make GREAT justices of the SCOTUS. Especially when they are compliant to our Constitution instead of constantly reminding US that republiCONs approved the ‘patriot act’.
fahvel October 27th, 2016 at 05:09
cheesh, you are a stupid one. How do you pretend to an idea when all you have said is irrelevant?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:04
Have you heard how she intends to nominate justices? That is against Rule of Law. If you do not know, please check before you answer – if you choose to answer.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:13
most Americans don’t support third reich rule of law (constantly changing in their favor) – but if it’s US Constitutional Law, I’m with RIGHTEOUS Hillary – and so are a hell of a lot of other Americans.
BTW: thanks again for your open support of the wonderful job POTUS Obama has done in keeping US safe. A GREAT POTUS of a GREAT NATION deserves a POTUS like Hillary who loves our country and our people instead of a complete nazi butthead like donald.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:16
Hillary’s method – the one she repeated and repeated – for nominating justices is against Rule of Law. Do you know her criteria? I cannot explain unless the person knows.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:18
Oooh. I don’t want to be against our Constitution and Rule of Law.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:47
Glad to hear it.
oldfart October 27th, 2016 at 00:48
Fits a Trumpanze description to a T.
Oh sorry what were you saying ?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:31
People are voting, and/or letting their votes be unduly influenced by garbage on the televisions to which they are addicted.
oldfart October 27th, 2016 at 01:41
Television is not the only thing the public is addicted to.
Don’t you just miss the days when folks would gather around the radio ? good nite who ever you are.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:56
There is nothing wrong with wanting to watch television and get excited over it, and so on. Adult Americans, on average, watch television for 5 hours a day.
It becomes a problem when they let bad television news influence their minds when they vote.
fahvel October 27th, 2016 at 05:08
right again tv guy!!!!
oldfart October 27th, 2016 at 09:12
“It becomes a problem when they let bad television news influence their minds when they vote.”
You have once again identified a loyal Trumpanze TV viewer.
fahvel October 27th, 2016 at 05:08
you’re correct there – what I don’t understand is how your small minded ideas arrived. Did you invent them yourself or do you listen to the radio idiots while asleep?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:03
You did not read for meaning. If you followed the line of exchanges, you would know. Please try that and come back.
Thank you.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 08:12
How profound.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:09
Thank you. But you do not give an opinion on that kind of voting.
Jack E Raynbeau October 27th, 2016 at 22:59
I just gave an opinion.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:08
well, if they did it for Ron, why not for donald?
same people
same BS.
Richard Banville October 27th, 2016 at 14:33
Trump made his NAME on television. It was television that made Trump a so-called “star”.
And you’re right, he is garbage.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:23
More people voted for him in the primaries than any other candidate in our entire history.
arc99 October 27th, 2016 at 19:29
he got more votes than any other candidate in REPUBLICAN history, not OUR history
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall
By candidate
Clinton 8,668,136
Trump 7,548,429
Sanders 6,131,951
Cruz 5,484,494
Rubio 3,394,134
Kasich 2,725,327
Carson 677,307
Bush 249,894
O’Malley 94,692
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:41
Thank you. I stand corrected. But to be the highest in Republican history and 2nd highest in all history is an incredible accomplishment, especially considering that there are a few more Dems than Repubs.
arc99 October 27th, 2016 at 19:47
and now that we both have cleared up our mistakes, not sure what it means.
my home state US Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are the top two in terms of number of votes in a single election for US Senate in American history. that fact certainly does not impress their political opponents, so I am not sure why you think primary vote totals indicate anything about Trump and his fitness for office.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 20:41
I did some math. 43% of the population, according to Gallup, is Democrat, and 39% is Republican. Applying this to the expected proportion of votes for each in the primary, it really is a tie with Clinton and Donald J. Trump.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 20:41
It shows what the people want.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:16
Brawndo.
Plants crave Brawndo because it has electrolytes.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:51
heh.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:15
Of course, because most of us can’t turn away from car crashes.
Richard Banville October 28th, 2016 at 08:59
Only if by “our entire history” you mean only Republicans. Trump got 14 million votes in the primary. Hillary got almost 17 million. In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton received more than 17 and a half million primary votes.
Of course, the above is a based on verifiable facts, something that Republicans absolutely despise.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:26
Yes, it was the most in any Republican primary. But consider this: Hillary went against ONE candidate. Trump went against SIXTEEN. Consider this: There are more Democrats than Republicans. In 2008, there were only 7 others against which each contended.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:14
Uh, people are voting for Donnie BECAUSE they saw him on television. How do you think the mouth-breathers know about him?
In this regard, he’s amazingly like another knuckle-headed Republican, St. Ronnie of Reagan. Ronnie got introduced to the American TV public on “General Electric Theater”, and then he went on to “Death Valley Days.”
Donnie started on “The Apprentice”, and then “Celebrity Apprentice.” Republicans, having been introduced to both by their beloved idiot boxes, welcomed both into their homes, to our detriment.
That’s not even considering the million of dollars in free ad time Donnie got by the networks, sucking up the oxygen both in the nomination battle and now running against Hillary. Donnie got more air time than ANY of the candidates, including Hillary.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:38
No, Ronald Reagan was known from this point on; it was in 1964. I think you should refer to history, and listen very, very carefully to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:49
Sonny, I’m older than you, and I know what I’m talking about. GE Theater and Death Valley Days predate your big find, but you get partial credit for finding something about Ronnie’s pre-gubernatorial days.
It may surprise you that he was also in films. Ah, “Bedtime For Bonzo”; who can ever forget that classic?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:52
I know that those TV shows predate it, but he became known for that speech (do you know WHEN it occurred) and when he was Governor of the most populated state.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 23:06
Sonny, how do you think the California public got to know this dude?
Answer: Movies and TV. It ain’t that complicated. And TV is how the American public got to know that monster Trump. I got to know him back in the 90s through Spy magazine. He was a car crash that you couldn’t pull away from back then, and he hasn’t changed one iota since.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:00
Yes. But in politics the great Ronald Reagan made the name by his speech that I presented to you (do you know when he made it?), and as Governor.
It is fatuous to claim that Ronald Reagan merely jumped into a high political position from acting. Do you know about his visits around the nation to the GE plants, for example – what he discovered by doing that? How he was dedicated to eradicating Leftist Communism from his screen days? How he worked for the FBI and had a code name? How the FBI supplied him with a weapon because his life was in danger? Etc.?
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:18
Fanboy, slow down. I made the case that movies and TV introduced America to Reagan, much as the horrible Apprentice programs did the same for Trump. Nothing you say changes these facts.
BTW, why do you obsessively ask, “Do you know when he made it?” You showed me at the start of your correspondence.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:13
Well, you are parroting the memes of your betters with the childish “Bedtime for Bonzo,” actually thinking that has some relevance or meaning.
Movies and TV introduced a lot of people to America, but not to be governor and president.
And your assertions make no sense: Reagan was no kind of super-star, and his appearance at GE ended in 1962, and he became governor FIVE years later, and gave that speech years after the GE ended. That speech was what brought him to national prominence in politics, not GE or “Bedtime,” of course. You are a parrot.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 21:34
And you are a dunderhead.
Once more: GE Theater and Death Valley Days introduced Reagan into American homes through their TV sets, much as Americans for the most part were introduced to Orange Julius Caesar through “The Apprentice.”
The object of your adoration, “The Speech” did bring Ronnie to the lever pullers’ attention in the GOP, but it does not obviate anything I said. If you asked the man on the street, the voter, about Ronnie or Donnie, they would say they became aware of them through their TV programs, NOT “The Speech.” Need I remind you that Goldwater lost by a landslide after “The Speech?”
And I guess if you have problems with “Bedtime For Bonzo” being childish, I suggest you tell Ronnie yourself next time you break out the Ouija board.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 22:24
It is fatuous to try to make this puerile comparison that Reagan’s coming to the public eye is the same as Trump’s via television shows.
If that were true, then Brad Pitt should have gone out for the presidency.
Of course, the familiarity helped, but it was not what made Ronald Reagan either governor or president.
Goldwater losing is unrelated to the impact of that speech, of course. You are disingenuous in trying to imply some kind of cause-effect. Silly.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 07:20
Bulletin: Brad Pitt has not announced his candidacy.
As an aside, consider that Jesse Ventura at one time was governor of Minnesota. Yes, celebrity visibility is a huge boon in this country for elected office, and why you can’t understand that, God only knows.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:23
Yes, of course it helps. But it does not detract. That is illogical to assert.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 20:57
What the heck? Where did I say or intimate that it detracts?
Dude, you keep reading stuff that ain’t there, or skipping stuff that is. Is this a pattern for you?
Do you finally understand how America got to know Ronnie, Donnie and Jesse? No?
What does it take for you to understand this elementary fact?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:13
Now you are playing games. I do not like games.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:18
I don’t like it when you suddenly start talking as if you’re answering voices in your head rather than me.
Again, wherever did you come up with this “detract” business? I never said anything of the kind.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:26
Based on your previous memes. I specified your using “memes.” Read what YOU wrote.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:41
Dude, start making sense; stop with the “detract” and “meme” nonsense.
Speak plainly; what do you want to say?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:45
I will not play that game. I am familiar with it. All you have to do is look at your comments about being in the media related to getting into public office. You are now either deliberately playing dishonest games, or are not remembering what YOU posted.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:03
I’ve made my point to which you keep denying against all evidence.
Move on, dude. Life’s too short.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:11
No denials on my part. I was clear: I will not play games.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:56
Who cares? I’m not the one playing.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 23:01
Yup. Round and round. I know the games.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:06
You invented the game, dude.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:10
Nope. You started it with the actor stuff.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:17
Sigh.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 18:46
But you did. And you are either playing a game or expecting ME to repeat and make specific references to what YOU wrote.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 19:55
It’s all a trick, or a plot, or a game, or something!
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:49
Argle bargle!
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:52
It is vapid to start on the acting, etc.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 23:03
Let me take a wild guess.
English is your second language, right?
Do you have a cousin named Heston Churchill? Your mastery of the language equals his.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:53
It is the meme of those who do not understand that presidency to refer to specific movies, of course.
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:19
Read your post out loud if it helps. Slowly.
It makes no sense. English MUST be your second language.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:14
Read slowly.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 21:22
“t is the meme of those who do not understand that presidency to refer to specific movies, of course.”
What a hot mess. Again, English, please.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 22:20
Nope. I will be blunt: Mindless people have joined the vapid revisionism about Reagan’s presidency. They do not understand what happened, but they parrot the childish “he was a B-actor,” or “Bedtime for Bonzo,” etc., as if that has any meaning at all. (It obviously does not.) They think it is a way to malign Ronald Reagan: That is the “meme,” Christopher.
And there are plenty more from those who only repeat what the TV tells them or “cut and paste” their vapid Googlie Searchies.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 07:21
Again, it’s Christian. See my other response so you can get your head straight.
Roctuna October 27th, 2016 at 07:52
If Herr Drumpf ever spoke seriously about the Supreme Court, taxes, education, etc. perhaps we’d have other things to respond to. Since his “policies” are poorly thought-out and articulated talking points and the rest that comes out of his mouth is salacious garbage, that’s all we’re left with.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:07
Donald J. Trump DID speak seriously about those things.
Take the Supreme Court. He did the following:
1. Said he would nominate someone like Scalia, someone who adheres to Original Understanding of our Constitution.
2. Provided a list of 20 names from which he will chose.
3. Thanked the Federalist Society for its help. That PROVES that Trump will do the right thing: Get experts to help. Do you know about the Federalist Society?
Roctuna October 27th, 2016 at 20:36
I was studying the Federalist Papers before that group of disgruntled cons and libertarians even started their misnamed society. All Trump did is take their list of favorite pro-business, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-environment, pro-christian idealogues and throw it out to the public. It “proves” nothing.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 20:43
Not true. After Scalia died, Donald J. Trump was clear about the kind of justice he would nominate. He referred to Original Understanding. He also thanked the Federalist Society, and they emphasize OU. If a justice does not abide by OU, he is not upholding our Constitution or Rule of Law.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:07
What you’re struggling to describe is “Original Intent”, not “Original Understanding.”
Truly, you and Donnie are not deep thinkers.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:36
No, there is a difference. A HUGE difference. Please let me know if you know the difference. Thank you.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:46
Well, since you claim a difference, pray explain it to us poor souls who have yet to be enlightened…
OI vs OU.
Begin.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:51
No. I am not here as a tutor. It requires a bit of study and investigation. Please let me know when you do that and get back. Thank you.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:55
So, you have no answers, just assertions?
Very well.
I say that your female ancestors all traded their favor for profit.
It is now up to you to disprove my claims.
(See how wrong you are now, whoreson?)
(WHAT? You disagree with my claim of your being a whoreson? But, you haven’t proven me wrong yet!)
(See how this works?)
(No, you likely do not.)
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:48
Actually, I discussed it with BURQA on this very thread. That was because BURQA was familiar with the concept, and he posted his own views. I could tell by his views that he had an understanding of it. I did not agree with his understanding, but at least I knew that BURQA had put forth effort in looking into the concept.
The idea of Original Understanding does take a bit of effort and time to understand, especially at a level to discuss. And it is worth the effort to those who are interested in our very culture and republic.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:51
“Original Intent”: here you go, sonny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:53
Original Understanding. It takes a bit of time to actually digest its importance and meaning. Please get back to me after you make a study of it.
Thank you.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 23:02
You’re pulling this out of your rear end. You got nothin’.
Please get back to me after you make a study of it.
Thank you.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:52
We cannot have Rule of Law without Original Understanding.
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:20
Keep saying it. It still makes no sense.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:15
It makes perfect sense. Do you know what Original Understanding means? Can you answer that? Don’t even apply it to our Constitution but to law in general. Or even a basic contract. You negate what you apparently do not understand. But show me I am wrong. Tell us all here what Original Understanding of a law, a contract, a constitution means.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 21:20
I thought you went away a few days ago.
BTW, Donnie not only thanked the Federalist Society, he said they could pick the justices for any vacancies. Get this straight; he has no interest in this area and just punted any decision to them.
Do you get the full import of this? No president EVER has washed his hands of this very important responsibility.
And you still think he’d take his duties seriously as president?
Your alarms don’t go off that he’s just trawling for extreme rightwing votes?
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 22:16
Not true. Months earlier, Donald J. Trump, hopefully the next president of the greatest nation in the world, made repeated references to nominating justices like Scalia.
Of course, he is not a constitutional scholar and would therefore defer to those who are. In fact, he SAID HE WOULD, AND HE DID!
Furthermore, this shows that Donald J. Trump actually DOES gather “the best” and listens to informed decisions!
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 07:24
No. It shows that Donnie panders to the ultraright. Why else would he get the head of Breitbart to head his campaign? Even Alex Jones marvels that he says something, and he soon hears an echo leaving Donnie’s lips.
I sure hope after this election that you far rightists wander in the wilderness for a long, long time.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:24
The CPUSA endorsed Obama. Based on your “reasoning,” that means that Obama is a Communist. YOUR “reasoning,” not mine.
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 19:36
“Why Vote?” BHO44 won 53% via 2:1 (D) 365 to (r) 173-47%-Mc’Palin Leaving Not A single GOP Accomplishment:
The huge 130 M+ voter surge in 2008 elected Barack Obama, the first African American president. In the face of non-stop opposition, he pushed through:
Affordable Health Care Act (Reduced Federal Deficits $1.5 T+ & Reduced Medicare outlays $1.07 T 2011-2020) extends coverage to 35 million uninsured people, outlaws denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and extends until age 26 coverage of children under their parents [sic] plans.
Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for equal pay for women.
Reversed Bush Jr’s 12/07 Great Recession Record Low Everything, Since (R) Hoover’s Great Depression: Stabilized the economy with $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that saved or created (2/3 of 15 M+ Private) jobs. Invested billions in clean energy jobs, saved the auto industry.
Unemployment benefits for millions of workers despite
Republican threats to shut down the government. Obama was forced to yield on Bush-era tax cuts for the rich that he wanted to terminate.
Appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Latina woman, who support the rights of working people.
Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess-appointment to name the director over Republican opposition.
Created a new food safety agency to protect people from food-borne illness.
Ended profit-grab by private banks on students [sic] loans, reestablishing Federal control on these loans and used the savings to extend loans to more students.
Doubled the funding for Pell Grants to $32 billion, increasing size of the grant $819 to a maximum of $5,500.
Ended the war in Iraq and moved toward ending the war in Afghanistan.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:54
Check this out. This organization listed almost everything you did and endorsed Obama because of it:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/why-vote/
Mensa Member October 31st, 2016 at 20:04
So, if the CPUSA endorses Obama for helping sick kids, you reject him for it?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 20:33
Read the post.
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 20:57
They lifted it from BHO44’s 2008 accomplishments. They received just 1M popular votes in 2008 and didn’t ballot in 2012.
BHO44 received (69.2 M) 53% Popular Vote and 2:1 D-365 Electoral votes of 270 to win! Vs Mc’Palin (59.5M)-45% -(r)173 says Roper. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ba2964b07863151fe8f1d2cd52b38056f42a26429f18df769cb228b82d3100.gif
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:13
I know McCain lost. I have known that for 8 years now.
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 21:24
You didn’t know how badly you lost across the board. And then you got pummeled again by voters at the polls in 2012! Losing five of the past 6 popular POTUS votes. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c4a57f36193dfb1288855ae5671803e0ebacfc36e34871c5ba3e4855dcc8153.gif
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:33
Do you get excited telling people what they already know?
Hmmmm……
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 21:50
And once again. All state polling proves Donnie has no path to 270 Electoral votes needed to win. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:51
It is likely that Donald J. Trump will not win. But you did it yet AGAIN. Do you get all hot and bothered or something, telling people what they already know? Do you think it gives some kind of impression that you have vast knowledge or insight?
Obewon November 1st, 2016 at 00:40
You should begin each of your posts with the only honest sentence you’ve posted here; “It is likely that Donald J. Trump will not win.”-RTO admits his efforts are as futile as a flatliner. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7778a692f97f0d511978528a1041cea2a8c690b65d66581bd3772e80f340c1b7.png
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:45
Typical from you.
Bye.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 20:19
Ahem.
Ask for your speed reading course fee refund as your comprehension is suffering badly.
Read this slowly. The HEAD of Breitbart is now HEADING Trump’s campaign. And ALEX JONES is offering speeches to Trump that he dutifully repeats.
Did you ever see anyone from the Communist Party heading any leadership post connected to the Obama campaign?
Did you ever see the Communist Party issue a statement that Obama soon offered an echo of?
NOOOOOOOO, you didn’t. Yes, this is my reasoning, not yours, thank God.
How do you screw such elementary things up?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 20:33
Good. Breibart’s news is sorely needed. Too bad he is no longer with us, however…
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 20:52
“Good” what?
Did you even follow my argument? You screwed up badly, and now you’ve shifted to something about praising the doofus heading Donnie’s campaign.
So you buy into Breitbart, huh? Try to defend this sack of crap:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/5-breitbart-conspiracy-theories-head-spin-article-1.2755173
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:12
Breibart is great. The Drudge Report has been good, too.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:19
I guess if my walls started talking to me, I would probably agree with you.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:29
Typical response from you. The source of your hate of the Drudge report is obvious, even though you probably do not know it but simply parrot the party line.
One reason for the venom and vitriol toward the Drudge Report: On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli, a 56-year old businessman reported for financial news network CNBC, gave a 4-minute rant on the floor of Chicago’s Mercantile Exchange against Obama’s proposed relief for defaulting home mortgage owners, and attacked proposed bailouts. Santelli called for a modern-day tea party. This was posted on the Drudge Report and within hours watched on YouTube. In days, “Tea Parties” were announced and scheduled all over the nation. This was instrumental in opposing Obama’s heinous plan for Universal Healthcare.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:48
And you’re off to the races again.
And you’re wrong again. I detest Drudge not because of the stupid tea party ignition, but simply because he traffics in lies, provable lies, all the time.
Here’s a sampling from 2012, for heaven’s sake:
https://thinkprogress.org/10-totally-fake-stories-bannered-by-drudge-this-year-572d72b59a59#.3s9ij8rvd
There’s lots more, of course. Drudge is a hugely unethical liar.
This took me 10 seconds to find.
You have Google. Use it.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:49
Far left site. Radical.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:11
Why are you allergic to the truth?
I’ve read your drivel about Drudge. Are you afraid of learning how you’ve been led astray? OK, you don’t like clicking on links? Here’s but two in the piece:
#4. Drudge: “Obama is giving out free phones”
Reality: The “Obama phone” is really a program started by Reagan and expanded by Bush that provides subsidized phone service to low-income Americans.
#9. Drudge: Obama had time to meet with a pirate but not Netanyahu
Reality: In September of 2012, Drudge suggested that Obama found time to meet with a pirate but not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The photo was actually taken in May 2009 for the White House Correspondents Dinner.
You should really click on the link because it more accurately shows the breathless headline delivery and quacky photos you love. I guess you’d love his lies in any form, huh?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:15
You don’t know the history of that, either!
The so-called “free phones” were originally started for people in rural areas because it was incredibly costly to get a phone installed and to pay the fees!
And under Obama, there actually were advertisements for phones by companies! It was a perversion of what the original intention was.
But yes, Drudge has manufactured stories or exaggerated. Or put up rumor and speculation as fact. But most of what he wrote is needed, of course.
You are using that typical Leftist tactic of absolutism.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:58
“But yes, Drudge has manufactured stories or exaggerated. Or put up rumor and speculation as fact.”
You’ve hung yourself, dude. Hoist by your own petard.
In plain English, Drudge lies, but you can’t be that plain, can you?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 23:02
You are using the “absolutism” tactic. I wrote truth. You are using using absolutism. I know the tactic.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:06
Can’t face the truth that you can’t call out Drudge’s lies.
Ask a fifth grader to read what you posted.
He’ll tell you the same thing. You should listen.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:10
You are the dishonest one now. I wrote clearly regarding that.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:19
You chafed at labelling them for what they were, trying every euphemism, but avoiding calling them lies.
Which they are. LIES. “Because it’s absolutist! And I won’t do that!”
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 18:48
No, anyone here who reads what was written, would see that I did – twice – respond perfectly clearly to what you wrote. And you deliberately ignore my response and instead resort to this puerile “absolutism,” which is just a typical tactic. I will not explain even this much again because I tire of your games.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 19:54
Got it: calling a lie a lie is “absolutism” in your book, and you will not play that game because you tire of that game, or that tactic, or because it’s typical, even though you don’t tire of saying the same thing over and over and over and…
You’re a Russian troll, right?
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 20:06
No, it was “absolutism.” Here we go again with knowing the subject. Do you know what “absolutism” is, and how it was used in this context? You used it. But in order to know it – or ADMIT it – one would have to see my response to your bringing up the distorting by that entity, and how you skirted it and then used your absolutism.
I would really appreciate your actually reading what was written. Next, if you do not understand what was written, please ask for clarification. If your distorting and apparent game-playing are from not reading or not understanding that is one thing; however, if this is deliberate – and it seems so more and more – that is something else, and very revealing about your character.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:47
Dude, you’re the Drudge lover – that’s how that stupid “absolutism” came up, and YOU originated it. You couldn’t bring yourself to call Drudge a liar, dancing around the issue.
Come back when you ditch the stupid fixation on your “absolutism.”
Drudge and you are liars. And your obsession with talking about nothing makes me suspect you’re also nuts.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:06
No, it is not. You used absolutism after I posted a response. Logically and rationally, your absolutism was just a dishonest tactic. If one juxtaposed what I wrote next to your “absolutism,” it would be perfectly clear.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 22:13
You keep obsessively saying the same mistaken stuff over and over and over.
It still does not make it right.
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:22
Nope. It is accurate. Look at the exchanges on that specific topic. My statement is accurate about your use of absolutism.
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 07:12
Millionth repetition. Absolutism. Tired. Look at my posts. Argle bargle.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 21:49
“absolutism, tactics, games, tire…
You gotta be a Russian troll with your repetitive, stilted language, right? You continue to complain of tiring, and yet you keep coming back with nonsense.
Do you get paid by the word?
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 22:06
“Russian?” What does that mean?
Chris November 2nd, 2016 at 07:11
Keep up. Russian trolls are posting to American based sites. Does that account for your stilted language?
whatthe46 October 31st, 2016 at 22:27
he refuses the truth and refuses to answer questions. this article is about tRump and sex and the fact that he admitted to being a serial sexual predator. but, he wants to talk about Obama and fk’n phones. that’s when you can’t with a straight face support or rather explain why he supports tRump. don’t look over here look ——>
p.s. how have you been chris?
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:03
Fine, thanks!
Right now, I’m watching a segment on Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. She right now is interviewing internet trolls from Russia wearing black ski masks.
Watch it. These may be the very people we are conversing with.
I’m not kidding.
whatthe46 October 31st, 2016 at 23:29
crazy. can’t wait until this madness is over. i fear for Hillary’s safety. and i’m serious.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:33
I know what you’re saying.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:53
Take a look at your phone bill. You will see what is called the “Universal Service Fund.” It is a well-disguised levy that was quietly introduced into the Telecommunications Act in 1996. Guess what this is for, Comrade…. You are paying someone else’s phone bill! Yup. This is the “Lifeline” program: It will pay for $30 cell or pick up the costs for a landline installation, then pay $9.25 a month for over 4 hours of talk time. In 2011, there were 13,700,000 accounts.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:28
Here you will find the reality of “The Universal Service Fund.” Not quite the Drudge scandal you envision. Low cost phones for the poor are just part of the whole. https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:55
And do you know about the fraud with ObamaPhones? Endemic as welfare programs are, drawing in scam artists, malingerers, bums: an FCC audit showed that 41% of were not eligible! Drug dealers buy them.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:24
Say good night, Gracie.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:56
Go to this site and find out how YOU can qualify! It is a website designed to help the “unfortunate,” the “oppressed,” the “victims” of the evil capitalist machinery to get a phone; I find the name of the website revealing. It automatically changes.
Don’t speak English? No problema! Hablamos Espanol.
The site used to be:
http://www.obamaphone.net
And there are plans for UPGRADES! An extra $20 a month gives an extra 1,000 minutes of talk time! Have to have basic “decency” and allow THOSE UPGRADES. And this includes texting and emails and INSTANT MESSAGING.
But something is peculiar here…. These people ostensibly cannot afford the $9.25 a month, and they are being offered “upgrades.” Hmmm….. Well, that is the “decent” thing to do.
The vapid claim that all of this is being funded by taxes on telecommunication companies and not on users does not make sense, except in the anti-capitalist mind of the Leftist: A tax levied on those customers does not make it NOT a tax! The costs get passed on. SAYING IT IS NOT A TAX IS A LEFTIST LIE! Customers pay the “Universal Service Fund” and THAT IS A TAX!
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 23:23
Dude, you’ve lost it. Big time.
That link is bogus. You couldn’t tell that?
Does this happen every time you’re sleep deprived?
RightThinkingOne November 1st, 2016 at 00:15
Again, the same thing. You did the same thing.
Chris November 1st, 2016 at 07:11
Click on your provided link.
This is not a government serviced site.
Why can’t you admit this?
Your throwing this out shows your disdain for exercising care in your arguments.
Again, come back when you’re reasonable and want to discuss substance.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:50
You contradicted yourself, too. Take a look.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:29
No. I won’t play this “rubber and glue” game of yours.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:30
Another reason, and this one really led to the viciousness: The rise of the internet took off only around 1993 with the Netscape web browser. The impact of great sites like the Drudge Report changed everything. Matt Drudge came to prominence by breaking Clinton’s degeneracy with the Monica Lewinsky story.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:51
Dude, you aren’t helping your case at all.
Next, you’ll be expounding on how popular the National Enquirer is compared to other papers. Car crashes are popular to look at, but not nourishing for the soul.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:54
No, you hate the truth because it does not align with the far-left academy that you parrot. Don’t you know that it turned out that Jayson Blair’s other supervisors had complained about his error-ridden reporting, too?
And Krugman bashed Enron, but the Drudge BS Detectors found he had former ties to it!
Maureen Dowd actually doctored a Bush quote to make him look dumb, and the BS Detectors exposed her Leftist perfidy.
You don’t like that, do ya?
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:35
Boy, you’re unleashing all of the debunked crap, aren’t you?
OK…I have never defended the Jayson Blair affair. Why do you expect me to? Oh, because it’s from the New York Times. Dude, the Times also lets Ross Douthat spew his garbage in their paper and I won’t defend that either. Didn’t know the Times printed conservatives? Get educated.
The Krugman-Enron thing? Really? I’m not even giving that a second thought; just consider he left the board as soon as he joined the Times. You’re not even trying here.
Finally, Maureen Dowd is NOT a liberal. She just enjoys being controversial; you won’t have me defending her.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:43
Straw Man. Never asked you to defend it, of course. Just pointing out several of the many things that Drudge and Breitbart brought to the public and which brought out Leftist rage.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:31
And another: The power of Conservatives on the internet is in what is called the “bullshit detectors.” Howell Raines of the New York Times felt its fury when he was deposed: A Jayson Blair was one of his favorite reporters who made outrageous fabrications, and the BS Detectors exposed this, and Drudge, Mickey Kaus, and other bloggers kept the story alive, and this kept the pressure on other media, including television, to cover it.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 21:55
Hilarious.
And what about liberals who discovered Abu Ghraib? Wasn’t this more significant and newsworthy and valuable for all of us as Americans to know about concerning the immoral Iraq War? What say you on this?
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 21:57
It reveals something important about Liberals: They care more about the comforts of terrorists than the protection of our citizens. Look at the Left-winger press related to “torture.” Heck, they distorted and lied. Torture can work, but Liberal dogma is more important than our own citizens.
Chris October 31st, 2016 at 22:40
Torture does NOT work. Ask your sainted McCain.
We do more damage to America in advocating torture than ISIS has ever done to us; this is a self-inflicted wound you wish to keep ripping at. I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince someone in love with actions that we long ago deemed inhumane.
Did you know we actually had trials and put to death Japanese who did this to OUR soldiers? Once upon a time, we were the good guys; I want to remain in that camp. You want to join North Korea, ISIS, Russian and China in their approach.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 22:46
It does work.
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 19:38
He and his ID’s were stiffed for payments due from Fraud U Trump! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cde891a2e212f7a75827489c88574171e9f5bcbe7b3b41d999a5bfbf296414b0.jpg
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 19:42
Exactly! He like Donnie is constitutionally illiterate on Stare decisis via Conservative Majority SCOTUS upholding the 14th & 10th Equal Marriage Rulings: Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05c0eb3f467504cd0f0fcd5d276353b84f363ae9b89b2306353e29acc2e7258f.jpg
Roctuna October 28th, 2016 at 11:40
Original Understanding? A fever-dream fantasy of Scalia’s, not a rational approach the law. You really are a funny guy.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:32
Do you know what Original Understanding is? One does not even have to apply it to our Constitution. Try applying it with a loan, a contract, a law. Go ahead. Let’s see if you understand it.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:04
NONE of those things are indicative of deep thoughts.
It’s been said that he’s such a shallow thinker that, in a conference, he believes the last person he talks to.
Your “expert” line is also hilarious. Do you believe Donnie when he says he “knows more than the generals, believe me”?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:35
No, he deferred to them.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:44
LINK
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:53
“I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26ikbTlQn0
Yeah, that’s some deferring he did there. Bigly.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:55
Well, he probably does not. But his approach is sound.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:58
Disregard years of on-the-ground military knowledge,in favor of “expertise” gained in the trenches of reality television and the shady world of mafia realty that is New York?
Is he going to send Omarosa after them?
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 23:01
Probably? Here’s a big hint: NO. And, no, his “approach is not sound.”
More generals and admirals have endorsed Hillary than Donnie. When you consider that the military usually goes for the more hawkish GOP, that should give you pause.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:51
Please tell me the precise number of generals who support Trump and the exact number who disagree. And specify which point.
Chris October 28th, 2016 at 07:24
Dude, you have Google. Use it.
Sigh.
Hillary 110.
Trump 88.
This is the last time I’ll do your homework, lazy boy.
“And specify which point.” What? Dude, work on your English.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:16
Fairly close. And it is not a popularity contest, by the way. It is a matter of right and wrong. And unlike Hideous Hillary, Donald J. Trump will get good advisers and listen.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 19:19
“And unlike Hideous Hillary, Donald J. Trump will get good advisers and listen.”
Please, tell me. When has Donnie EVER listened to someone? Don’t you remember when he said, “I know more than the generals about ISIS. Believe me.”
Trumpettes must be the most delusional disciples on the planet.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:33
Yes. That is a consistent report by politicians who have met with him: An incredibly good listener and flexible.
Chris October 30th, 2016 at 21:59
From a Costa column in the Washington Post:
“Trump tends to echo the words of whomever last spoke to him, making direct access to him even more valuable, the people said, requesting anonymity to talk about internal campaign discussions.”
This is from Trump’s people. And this is what you call “(a)n incredibly good listener and flexible.”
You are so funny. And gullible.
Obewon October 28th, 2016 at 09:35
Non compos mentis 2nd Amendment Muskets-only advocates at “the Federalist Society” capabilities were cremated with Scalia’s corpse.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:06
my vote was very mindful of all the great accomplishments of HONEST Hillary, who, as you know is the friend of POTUS Obama, a POTUS whom you have shown very glowing reports of for his excellence in race relations, world leadership and of course, keeping US safe from any major terrorist attacks (something republiCONs seem unable to do). I’m sure HONEST Hillary will continue the march forward, and we thank you for your support and thoughtfulness in supporting her!
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:15
Obama is one of the worst presidents in our entire history, second only to Andrew Johnson.
Obewon October 28th, 2016 at 09:25
Facts: 238 presidential scholars polled annually since 1982: George W. Bush(43) worst president of modern era, fifth worst in US history! http://www.rawstory.com/2010/07/nations-leading-presidential-scholars-bush-worst-president-modern-era-5th-worst-history/
POTUS Barack Obama is in the top 1/3 of USA’s Best Presidents. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fece82b5ab3cbbb621b065299ee0fdb7f171e665b8d74fc271a7b3a873912ccb.jpg
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:27
Not about Bush. Are you people STILL screaming about Bush?
Obewon October 30th, 2016 at 19:35
Facts: “Worst Modern POTUS & 5th worst in U.S. History is Bush Jr.”
Another Fact: “BHO44 is in the top 1/3 of best Presidents.”
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:37
Obama is one of the worst presidents in our entire history, of course.
I have no concern or interest in the rank of Bush. It is obvious why you bring him up. You have created an idea in your own head for obvious purposes but they do not make sense in this context.
Obewon October 30th, 2016 at 19:40
Cyanosis caused your abnormal blue discoloration because you’ve had your empty head up your azz too long.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:44
Obama is one of the worst presidents in our entire history. No question. Irrefutable. Incontrovertible.
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:45
I count the time until we are rid of Obama: 2 months and 20 days to go until we rid ourselves of that embarrassment and disgrace.
dogsRgoodpeople October 27th, 2016 at 01:40
Those of your mindset were pretty much focused on “salacious garbage” when you impeached Bill Clinton .
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 01:53
That was not an election. Clinton defiled the White House. And the accusations were true. Remember “that woman?”
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 02:42
defiled the white house you say. hehehehe. but, you’re ok with tRump going on trial with the rape of a little girl? fk your sister much?
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:02
WTF did ousted crook Newt Gingrich do to the Congress?
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:00
“Clinton defiled the White House.” Ha, ha, ha! Hilarious!
Uh, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not a cathedral. Wherever in the world did you come up with this verbiage?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:35
Yes, he defiled the White House.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:36
So did GHW Bush.
So did Ike.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:48
Clinton defiled the White House.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:59
No answer?
Thought not.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:54
Do you do parties? You’re killing me!
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:55
Clinton defiled the White House.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:59
Uh, your record is skipping, dude.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:21
And this guy won’t?
(NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKB92ohXn20
Obewon October 28th, 2016 at 09:46
You don’t even know of Bush(41) Sr’s 16 year+ affair with his taxpayer paid ‘Head of Bush’s secretarial pool’ floozy. Who never did any work. Unless Bush called her in to party…
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:28
Clinton defiled the White House. Apodictic.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:35
Ahem…
Lorrainie November 1st, 2016 at 20:58
You mean, Ms. Blowinsky? Bill was and still is a filthy horn dog!
whatthe46 November 1st, 2016 at 21:08
yet, you support a child rapist, a racist a bigot and a sexual predator. there’s more, but, i don’t want to use up the entire thread. LOL OMG, you big dumbass.
Lorrainie November 1st, 2016 at 21:54
I support Donald J. Trump for President.
Enjoy your evening.
whatthe46 November 1st, 2016 at 23:12
he’s been accused by another woman that says he raped her at 12. there will be more by the time the 8th comes. come back so i can laugh in your racist face when he gets hammered. LOLOLOL
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 00:03
You’re so foolish but that’s ok.
smugly ugly hildabitch is losing!
whatthe46 November 2nd, 2016 at 00:32
she got 28% of registered repub voters in FL. BOOM bitch, it’s over! and that’s just early voters. LOLOLOL and yes it is true, he’s accused of raping another child. GRABBING and raping. redneck trash. all of you. LOLOLOL
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:00
Are you a man or a woman?
Who did you vote for?
I voted for the next President who is Donald J. Trump.
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:00
No. Who is Lorraine?
Now he even up votes you.
How sweet.
I support Hillary Clinton
the next and first WOMAN president of the United States of America.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:02
Who are you? Man or woman?
Who did you vote for?
I’ve voted for the next President, Donald J. Trump.
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:12
I…am an American patriot
and anything thing else is none of your business.
Why do you follow right thinking one when he does not even acknowledge you ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:19
Thanks for your service old fart.
Why do you care who or what I do ?
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:25
What makes you think I care one way or the other what you do with your life ? I have no interest in walking in your shoes.
Why do you follow right thinking one when he does not even acknowledge you ?
you up vote him…obviously.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:31
Are you serious?
Why are you talking to me if you have no interest in me?
Do you understand how Disqus works?
Why do you have Zero followers and Zero following?
Last chance to answer otherwise I will end this nonsense.
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:38
Interest in walking in your shoes…
I understand a lot more things than you might assume.
My conundrum is simple, as is my question to you.
I care nothing about people who may or may not “follow” me.
What brings me here is I thoroughly enjoy the comradery
of like minds and their support. what brings you here ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:51
Actually if I had a choice I wouldn’t have been here because you are of not like minded but there is someone who is very interesting and intelligent,that’s why.
If you get the Disqus weekly comments list and you see something someone has said I go to that article and read it and if I like what a person has to say I might follow the person and I will up vote them.
That’s all it is but you all are obviously obsessed with me.
You don’t follow anyone so you don’t get that list.
Btw…I’m Lorrainie…nice to meet you even though we are of different political ideas!
So far you’ve been halfway decent and leave the name calling out. Thanks for that.
I had to block a few here.
Are we done now?
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:58
Name calling is not my bag.
Care to answer my question ?
I’m not obsessed, just curious as to how you feel about his comment.
I find arguing over opinions is a waste of time. the person you are following entered the “realm” with a bang, and does not respond well to direct questions to him (?) and seems also ignorant of Disqus, despite his eloquence. are we done now ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 02:10
Opinions vary .
You might want to venture out a bit and as for the person I follow I find very interesting and intelligent as all the great people I follow. It’s really quite fun and you learn and laugh!
My comment history is open just like yours, I have nothing to hide.
Disqus Digest is a great place to find interesting articles and people.
Have a great day☺️
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 02:22
They SURE do…
It’s obvious you’re not going to answer my question…
fascinating.
I have nothing to hide either.
I don’t block anybody no matter what they say to me.
Mama raised me to have a backbone. TTFN.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 02:24
I’m happy for you,old Fart☺️
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:18
Cat got your tongue ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:22
Oldfart,why don’t you have any friends on discus?
Zero followers…zero following!
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:45
Silly, I don’t require “followers” to have a happy life.
I don’t deny like your friend does…now DO I ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:53
What are you talking about?
I’m happy🤗
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 02:06
Did I say you weren’t ?
Did you not suggest that I require followers, to be happy or are you suggesting that I need followers to be relevant ?
I believe I have already answered that question.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 02:21
You suggested it. Btw, followers or following people on Disqus is part of the reasons Disqus is on line so that people can talk to each other.
You’re fine….😎
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:09
I’m not impressed with smugly ugly as the first woman.
She’s losing.
So are you a woman?
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:13
What is a woman’s ?
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:16
Woman?
whatthe46 November 2nd, 2016 at 01:16
are you an inbred? the answer is likely yes. do you know this trailer trash? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0961dbd722b94cb8c30f29232f5be8fdc7e8c5778b1bcdd57e4448d7e89fcc6.jpg
y’all some nasty bitches damn.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:39
Blocked….
whatthe46 November 2nd, 2016 at 01:17
i’m waiting for you to post a picture of your 13 y/o daughter/sister with tRump can rape me on her shirt. you seem to approve of him raping children.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:39
blocked ….your commenting history is private..babye!
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 01:22
I am not worried about her losing right now…so you say, tomorrow it will all be different again. You need to worry about Nov. 8th.
Then all this charade will soon be over.
Lorrainie November 2nd, 2016 at 01:34
I worry about nothing.
Enjoy life patriot…. President Trump will 🇺🇸MAGA🇺🇸
oldfart November 2nd, 2016 at 00:59
No. Who is Lorraine?
How now brown cow ?
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 02:26
Another poster.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 10:01
the deplorable are the ones who eat this stuff up, otherwise they would not have made it their conservative religious movement.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:13
It is the Democrat Trump-haters who are “eating this stuff up.”
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 21:58
Actually, Donnie has nobody to blame but himself.
If Hillary had said just ONE of the outrageous things Donnie has said, her campaign would have been over. For example, if Hillary had , just once, said if Chelsea wouldn’t have been her daughter that she would “date” her, it would be game over.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:34
Haven’t you seen the list of foul-mouthed and angry obscenities of the lowest kind she has said, especially to the Secret Service?
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:37
No.
Link to them using a source NOT Breitbart, Alex Jones, or anything with the words “freedom” or “patriot” in them.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:49
No, you link it. It is valid. Use a four-letter word and add her name. See what you get from sources of which you approve, of course.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:00
Your claim;up to you to show the proof.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:51
It is true. Try the method of Google that I presented. You will see it.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:53
No, I really want to see the link(s) you’re relying on…there may be a few that I’ve missed.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:06
I just did a Google search, putting in Hillary, secret service and the four-letter obscenity.
Got over one MILLION, 3 hundred and 50 thousand hits.
Hirightnow October 28th, 2016 at 00:13
I just did a search of “Trump fucks puppies”…
Got 1,760,000 results.
So…by your logic….
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:19
No, look it up. It is there.
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 00:33
!!! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b029c76378ea5eb0d17be0ae40b316f329298b08b0b47105020d3c5aaea4a82e.gif
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 02:28
you just schooled him. LOL. hey, take my post to that pos out of “waiting for approval” please. it’s not bad. darn.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 22:58
Donnie has said ON VIDEO much more than Hillary could even imagine.
You have NOTHING on video to see; just b*llsh*t from disaffected inferiors.
This gives you just a taste of foul-mouthed Donnie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xej2hvJdxw
burqa October 28th, 2016 at 00:55
RightThinkingOne, (posted above): “It is when the media is obsessed with ACCUSATIONS, accusations that come out after two decades, right before an election. And many are duped. The people who let this unduly influence their vote are really mentally lazy: It is mentally much easier to let oneself get sucked into this prurience than to think about our Court, education, corporate taxation, borders, etc.“
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 01:02
Hillary’s foul obscenities are not “accusations”; they are facts.
And I do not even think that they are of significant importance in electing a president; I refer to them to point to the hypocrisy and bias of Trump-haters, and mindlessness that is required to obsess on the media’s incessant repetition of 3 sentences Trump said over a decade ago.
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 22:09
and you eat up the stupidity he spews and https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6bedca48d34807e498c930538b4970748ac9da492840eab9c7f2e2412cb559c0.jpg he says he’s smart.
burqa October 28th, 2016 at 00:58
Yes, and just the other day it was conservative Lorrainie who posted about how she was looking forward to wiki posting a child porn video.
She made it clear she would be “eating that stuff up.”
You’re familiar with Lorrainie, aren’t you?
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 01:02
No. Who is Lorraine?
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 10:10
…
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:30
I see no rejoinders of value from you. Only what you think are clever insults.
oldfart October 31st, 2016 at 09:06
That comment was a statement of fact disproving your denial…
followed by a carefully worded well thought out response to your demeaner
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:24
No denials from me, and no rejoinders from you.
Bunya October 27th, 2016 at 14:09
I don’t consider the sexual assault of women to be “salacious garbage”.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 19:22
It is when the media is obsessed with ACCUSATIONS, accusations that come out after two decades, right before an election. And many are duped. The people who let this unduly influence their vote are really mentally lazy: It is mentally much easier to let oneself get sucked into this prurience than to think about our Court, education, corporate taxation, borders, etc.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 21:53
Amazingly, Donnie has been the one to ignore the issues.
In Gettyburg, he was heralded to be delivering a major policy address. Instead, he spent his time saying he was going to sue his accusers. Again, you should be yelling at him, not the press.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:34
Yes, he should restrain himself and focus on his excellent policies concerning the 2nd amendment, repealing ObamaCare, nominating justices, decentralizing education, and on and on. Excellent.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:39
Ted Cruz thinks that we don’t NEED another SCOTUS appointee…
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:50
Yes. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a specific number of justices. I suggest you read it. Only ten pages.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:02
So do you agree with Cruz, an experienced statesman?
Or Trump. an inexperienced outsider?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:52
I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:54
Ah.
The “lesser of two perceived evils” plan…
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:05
I respected his Original Understanding with our Constitution.
Bunya October 28th, 2016 at 09:58
That’s right! I remember the way the “mentally lazy” went after Bill Clinton (by Newt Gingrich, no less) for his sexual indiscretions when he was president. Is that the kind of “mental laziness” you’re talking about?
RightThinkingOne October 30th, 2016 at 19:29
He profaned the White House. Then lied about it. He was depraved.
Bunya October 31st, 2016 at 10:01
My apologies. I thought we were talking about Bill Clinton. not Ronald “Bonzo goes to College” Reagan.
RightThinkingOne October 31st, 2016 at 19:25
Take a look at what the poster CHRIS has written. Exactly the same mindless stuff. The meme that is parroted.
Bunya November 1st, 2016 at 10:17
Not parroted – fact.
burqa October 28th, 2016 at 00:52
Me neither. But with replies like that, you gotta keep in mind that when it comes to sex, conservatives are complete, absolute, psycho freaks!
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 02:41
laughing.
Osamao November 2nd, 2016 at 23:15
To the androgynous generation……………yes.
Chris October 27th, 2016 at 21:50
You ignore the obvious: you should be addressing Donnie instead of the press.
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:32
Yes, I have paid attention to his policies. Excellent!
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 22:41
What policies do you agree with? What policies do you DISAGREE with?
Enquiring(sic) minds, etc….
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 22:50
Nominating process of justices, de-centralizing education, 2nd amendment, etc.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:04
So, the current congress is wrong, in your opinion, for not considering President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee?
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 23:09
that’s an “oops.” i wanna see what B.S. he says to get around that. this should be interesting. remind him that the repukes are so pissed that they have lost another election, that they want to obstruct Hillary’s choice for SCOTUS as well.
Hirightnow October 27th, 2016 at 23:15
SHHHH!
Imma tryin’ta catch dinner,woman! Ye’ll scar it away!
( :P )
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 01:06
ok, i just busted out laughing. imma leave the thing alone. besides, i don’t think he actually comments on the article. i.e., go to the article itself. i think he’s just responding to his notifications. so, he won’t see what i’ve posted to you.
oldfart October 28th, 2016 at 10:07
;)
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 22:39
Again: What standard are you using?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:56
Obama’s criterion was hideous. It was against our very basic principles:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman… would more often than not reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male.”
-Barack Obama, stating a rationale for why he appointed Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court Justice
Totally against Rule of Law.
Hirightnow October 28th, 2016 at 00:17
So, you’re hedging.
If the man is so inviable a candidate, why did they NOT want to vote ‘yea’ or ‘nea’? Wouldn’t their decision have been justifiable, if they were in the right?
You’re flailing like a drowning victim to retcon this into how your side was “correct”…
and failing quite miserably.
RightThinkingOne October 28th, 2016 at 00:21
You don’t understand politics. You think that decisions are made based only on what is “right?” And by what standard? Radicals can think that justices should be appointed to force certain types of social issues on us. Others think Original Understanding and Rule of Law should be the primary criteria.
But what is “correct?” What standard are you using?
RightThinkingOne October 27th, 2016 at 23:57
Later, Sotomayer said, in a dissent in Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court expanded an exception to the exclusionary rule known as the attenuation doctrine, this radical justice said, “drawing on my professional experiences, I would add that unlawful ‘stops’ have some consequences much greater than the inconvenience suggested by the name,” and added that one is the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be catalogued,” and making oblique references to critical race theorists and the Black Lives Matter movement. Sotomayer is obviously not a real justice, but a social reformer. (The doctrine means that even though the government cannot use evidence that is illegally obtained, there are exceptions: One is “attenuation,” which applies when the unlawful act by law enforcement is sufficiently remote from the finding of the evidence to diminish (attenuate) the unlawful act’s significance.)
Osamao November 2nd, 2016 at 19:07
No. The people put them in as a majority to stop his tyranny.
They finally did something right.
Hirightnow November 2nd, 2016 at 19:11
Explain, oh replier to a week old comment, exactly what “tyranny” President Obama has heaped upon the United States.
Really; I’m interested in what civil rights you have lost, how you have been oppressed, how the United States has lapsed towards anarchy/fascism/dictatorship since Mr. Obama has taken office…..all of the horrid details.
I offer an open mind.
Osamao November 2nd, 2016 at 20:52
He’s used his agencies for tyranny. Ask Gibson Guitars for one.
Anyway. Dems. are trained to be Constitutionally ignorant, Progressives don’t believe in the constitution. It’s their ideology to shred it.
Political Correctness is right out of Mao’s Little Red Book.
E.P.A.,I.R.S.,H.U.D.,D.O.J. Obamao uses them all against us. You’re a finished product of behavioral scientists social engineering experiments. Your post tells me you’re a perfect wet dream of your self proclaimed liberal Gods. Kind of useless talking to you. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96ff1a4b61407471334776afaa08ba207cd2b514a2acd6e9862ab1d65ac5f3ab.jpg
Hirightnow November 2nd, 2016 at 21:49
You’ve presented”arguments” that, essentially. add up to being your opinions.
Show me ONE law that has taken your freedom.
Show me ONE E.O. that has resulted in the loss of your civil liberties.
Show me, in essence, any one thing that President Obama has done that has affected your Constitutional rights.
I will wait.
(Oh, and I studied Poli-Sci before you had your first job…)
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 22:38
What one has “studied” or one had a “major” or “degree” in holds no weight in these kinds of forums, of course.
That said, I refer you to the transgender bathroom issues, and Little Sisters of the Poor. Look at what his DOJ did with schools in relation to supposed “bias” in school discipline.
Etc.
Osamao November 2nd, 2016 at 22:54
SLAP………………IDIOT!
Hirightnow November 3rd, 2016 at 07:54
Now you resort to insults?
Steven Sparks November 6th, 2016 at 18:54
I think obongocare is number one. There are 74 more obvious ones on top of the fact that EO’s as used are unconstitutional.
RightThinkingOne November 2nd, 2016 at 22:36
Exactly! That is the primary device Obama has used: The bureaucracies. He used the EPA, for example, along with the IRS, to do end-runs around Congress.
Osamao November 2nd, 2016 at 23:07
Inaction is another weapon the Marxist S.O.B. uses on us.
I’ll NEVER forgive the Democrats for what they’ve done to us!!! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fd6531c784c811fb9bbbfea44c96f55f59965afdcf21d451d175ecac835ce73.jpg
RightThinkingOne November 3rd, 2016 at 01:21
Yes. For a century, these “progressives” have undermined our founding principles, especially through what they deem “expert administration” – the federal bureaucracies.
Actually, these bureaucracies are a DIRECT affront to our very basic founding principles, namely separation of powers. The bureaucracies combine all three: They create laws (legislative branch), deem if someone broke the law (judicial), and carry out the penalty (executive). On top of that, they ain’t even elected, so there is no control by the citizens!
But that is primarily how B. Hussein has undermined our Constitution and Rule of Law. 2 months and 17 days to go until we are RID of him!
Obewon November 3rd, 2016 at 02:54
BHO44 J.D. is a Harvard Law School Jurus Doctor. Graduating within the top 10% of his Harvard Law School class as Magna (um Laude. Thereafter teaching Constitutional Law as a Professor for a decade. You could have saved yourself much agony, had you studied Constitutional law as BHO44 excels at.
Y’all are crap’n pants, about to realize how dysfunctional you are. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a53b8015d36dbad0b502f016ae9a35f1146621da591031818338476711a363ba.jpg
RightThinkingOne November 3rd, 2016 at 19:05
Lenin was elected the head of his university group.
Pol Pot was given a scholarship to study in Paris.
Che graduated medical school and was a chess prodigy from the age of 13.
If you knew our history and had read our Constitution, you would realize that it does not take a “scholar” to understand it, never mind “interpret” it. But a so-called “scholar” would, of course, be able to convolute it.
Instead of cutting and pasting graphs from Google searchies (that any elementary school student could) and reciting who has what “degree,” why not defer to your own ideas?
Hirightnow November 3rd, 2016 at 07:53
Opinion again.
Obewon November 3rd, 2016 at 02:34
Scientific Illiterates are unique to USA’s FNC ‘homescholars’ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05a2bc9d5a9a4fd5f2f6206a0794d1f3891dee3764d4f80652a0e0cbc87cab7e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e753e3c4bcec3896584df7e5ef43bb2248196af28bf3185331ef921434a6ee62.jpg
RightThinkingOne November 3rd, 2016 at 18:56
It is not about “global warming.” It is about what I wrote. Try reading.
Obewon November 3rd, 2016 at 02:29
You are uninformed. BTW why aren’t you wearing Teabags now?
On a recent episode of PBS’s “NewsHour,” a media panel reflected on former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s (R) sex scandal and reflected on whether politics “attracts” people prone to abuses and misbehavior.
New York Times columnist David Brooks, a center-right pundit, highlighted a notable exception.
“I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.
“And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality.”
PBS commentator Mark Shields responded that Brooks raised “a good point,” adding, “I agree with him on this administration in particular.” http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/amazingly-scandal-free-administration https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fece82b5ab3cbbb621b065299ee0fdb7f171e665b8d74fc271a7b3a873912ccb.jpg
Gary Parillo October 26th, 2016 at 22:06
Does he ever think before he talks?
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:19
it requires a functioning brain. so the answer is NO.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:21
doesn’t this look disturbing to you? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5db27b5e776091c7c425efb018b6518c2472355106638b2c2dc919bebc0034b6.jpg
a daughter giving her father a lap dance is…
Gary Parillo October 26th, 2016 at 23:35
That “is” disturbing.The guy sitting to their right,was looking over at them,and gives me the impression he was thinking,”should I call the police,or just forget I saw that.” I don’t think that’s “normal” behavior.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:44
i noticed the guy looking too. it’s not normal behavior AT ALL.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:42
Makes Me Jealous. LOL :+)
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:43
silly you.
The Original Just Me October 27th, 2016 at 00:10
Hey, I may be an Old Man but I am still alive . LOL :+)
whatthe46 October 27th, 2016 at 00:23
i have no doubt about that my friend.
burqa October 28th, 2016 at 00:48
…………………that’s what they do in public!……………….
whatthe46 October 28th, 2016 at 02:59
every time i am reminded of the way he talks about her sexually, and the photos that are out with disturbing images of the two of them, the more i am convinced they have done the naughty. ok, i’m gonna go puke now.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:41
” THINK ” ???? Hell No, He would just Push The Button.
jybarz October 26th, 2016 at 22:14
He’s a dick-fckg-head.
So what else can you expect from him.
He’s not talking with his big inflated head upstairs.
He’s always talking with his little tiny head downstairs.
Remember a woman has accused him of raping her when she was 13y old, same age as Ivanka at that very time.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:19
15 year old girls have also accused him of walking in on them while in the dressing room of pageants, naked. he said he could because he was the owner. i have to wonder about what in the hell was going through the minds of the parents. ’cause that’s bullshit.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:40
A Yellow Haired, 300 Pound, Pile of BS.
Mensa Member October 26th, 2016 at 23:00
Look, I’m willing to give anyone a break — even Trump. We all say things that can be taken the wrong way.
But this is a pattern with him. He really seems to have a creepy sexual thing with his daughters. I can only speculate to what extent it goes.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 09:58
I doubt any of them will be forthcoming about their daddy’s p*ssy grabbing.
even though, it has now become a standard to look up to by the american conservative christian who has made their god in the image of donald.
Willys41 October 27th, 2016 at 17:27
Yeah, after the first 10,000 degenerate remarks I’m not giving out any more passes.
The Original Just Me October 26th, 2016 at 23:38
What do you have in common with your daughter ? ” SEX ” So , they are the same Sex ? Damn She looks GOOD for being a Cross Dresser.
whatthe46 October 26th, 2016 at 23:44
just died laughing at that.
Duke Woolworth October 27th, 2016 at 07:19
Good luck spinning that!
Warman1138 October 27th, 2016 at 07:31
Just when you thought you heard it all, another anti-Einstein moment materializes in Trump World.
granpa.usthai October 27th, 2016 at 09:56
still sporting his american conservative christian solid block I see.
Bunya October 27th, 2016 at 14:06
Are you kidding? Where do you think Trump gets his “morals” from?
.
“On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.’ ”
Genesis 19:33
Obewon October 31st, 2016 at 19:45
Asked what he has in common with his daughter, Trump answered ‘Incest!’