Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Eric the Green]

I just hope that you pay attention to what's going on, radind. Evidently you aren't doing that yet, or else it's already clear that you won't have much to say except to defend all the things I've mentioned that Trump will do to us.

Things are going to get bad, really, really bad, for all the things I'M concerned about. Maybe not for you.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-13-2016, 02:47 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: I agree with Tara. You guys have lost your collective mind. 

The United States has a legal process for dealing with criminals. You don't go around shooting them, unless your life is in immediate danger and it's done in self-defense.

But if you want to try, good luck. Red America is the side with the guns. Plus Trump himself now has Secret Service protection. You're gonna try and get through that? If so, you might want to take your discussion OFF a public internet forum.

Seconded...  or Thirdeded...

[Eric the Green]

(12-13-2016, 03:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 02:47 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: I agree with Tara. You guys have lost your collective mind. 

The United States has a legal process for dealing with criminals. You don't go around shooting them, unless your life is in immediate danger and it's done in self-defense.

But if you want to try, good luck. Red America is the side with the guns. Plus Trump himself now has Secret Service protection. You're gonna try and get through that? If so, you might want to take your discussion OFF a public internet forum.

Seconded...  or Thirdeded...

No need. The accusation against people here supposedly saying this is misplaced. Our discussion here is all about what happens if the right-wing acts out violently, not about the left-wing acting out first.

[Odin]

(12-13-2016, 10:31 AM)radind Wrote: I have been in mourning for the last 8 years and finally have  a glimmer of hope.

L-O-fucking-L

[David Horn]

(12-13-2016, 05:05 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:31 AM)radind Wrote: I have been in mourning for the last 8 years and finally have  a glimmer of hope.

L-O-fucking-L

We have our own train wreck in the offing.  I'm not mourning, but I am baffled.  This is a worldwide phenomenon.  We need to see it that way.  After all, the Philippines elected a one-term mayor to run the country, and he's running death squads from the Presidential mansion.  Most of Europe is seriously considering neo-fascists.  It's not just us.

[pbrower2a]

(12-13-2016, 06:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:05 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:31 AM)radind Wrote: I have been in mourning for the last 8 years and finally have  a glimmer of hope.

L-O-fucking-L

We have our own train wreck in the offing.  I'm not mourning, but I am baffled.  This is a worldwide phenomenon.  We need to see it that way.  After all, the Philippines elected a one-term mayor to run the country, and he's running death squads from the Presidential mansion.  Most of Europe is seriously considering neo-fascists.  It's not just us.

It was bad enough when Commies had atom bombs. At least the Commies cherished their own lives and didn't pretend that a heroic death was anything other than a tragedy.  The first people that I could rule out in the 9/11 attacks were the Commies of China and Cuba. Marxism offers no Pie-In-the-Sky-When-You-Die.

Fascism in any form is a death cult celebrating death whether as killers or the killed. For them martyrdom in the name of Nation and Party is a new form of life. This is not simply an attribute of Abrahamic religions (European fascism twisted the heritage of Christian martyrs to the service of Race and Nation, and "Islamofascism" has done much the same with ancient martyrs in the name of Islam), but even Buddhism (think of the kamikaze pilots who put Buddhist devotion into their rationale for flying manned missiles to their doom).

If any good can come out of a Trump Presidency it will be a warning that fascist demagoguery, however clever it may be, gets horrible social policy. I expect American politics to be reduced to a sort of reality show that will offend almost anyone with a three-digit IQ and scare much of the rest of Humanity. I expect America to be the sort of place that people want to stay away from -- sure, there is work, but it comes with the sting of hunger and the sting of the lash, a part of the ugly legacy of plantation slavery.

Such will turn much of the world against the New America. I expect people who love such freedom as they have to find an America that has abandoned liberal democracy to see a fascistic America as an Evil Empire on par with the old Soviet Union. Even where there is no democracy, nations such as China and most Arab countries will assert the superiority of their culture to the garish vulgarity of the Reality Show and its anti-intellectualism. I expect even Russia to turn against America once Donald Trump or his successor becomes untrustworthy.

[Odin]

(12-13-2016, 08:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 02:47 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: I agree with Tara. You guys have lost your collective mind. 

The United States has a legal process for dealing with criminals. You don't go around shooting them, unless your life is in immediate danger and it's done in self-defense.

But if you want to try, good luck. Red America is the side with the guns. Plus Trump himself now has Secret Service protection. You're gonna try and get through that? If so, you might want to take your discussion OFF a public internet forum.

Once again you take things out of context. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of professional, a shrink or something? You ought to have a better attention span than you are exhibiting. The comments about shooting were in the context of the National Guard putting down a revolution.

She claims to be a psychiatrist who works with kids, and yet she thinks transgenderism is a mentally illness. I feel bad for any transgender kid under her care.

[playwrite]

another Trump Chump begins to awaken -

Quote:Why Obamacare enrollees voted for Trump

In Whitley County, Kentucky, the uninsured rate declined 60 percent under Obamacare. So why did 82 percent of voters there support Donald Trump?


“...I’m afraid now that the insurance is going to go away and we’re going to be up a creek...”

I finally realized why I, a fairly well-off White male, fights for these people - 
- they're children.

Oh yes, I know treating them that way makes them throw tantrums - have you ever seen a child do otherwise?

[Classic-Xer]

(12-13-2016, 02:47 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: I agree with Tara. You guys have lost your collective mind. 

The United States has a legal process for dealing with criminals. You don't go around shooting them, unless your life is in immediate danger and it's done in self-defense.

But if you want to try, good luck. Red America is the side with the guns. Plus Trump himself now has Secret Service protection. You're gonna try and get through that? If so, you might want to take your discussion OFF a public internet forum.

You're back!! Good to see ya again.

[Eric the Green]

Trump's cabinet is an attack on the people; it's an attack on you.

[playwrite]

(12-14-2016, 03:14 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Playdude!!! How's it going.

Treating people like children doesn't result in tantrums. It results in them quietly voting against your candidate. You haven't figured that out yet?

I do think it's ironic that Rick Perry is going to be the head of a department that he thought should be eliminated. Stick to stuff like that, instead of insulting people.

Were you at the Hillary rally on election night?

No, it's being children that has the Trump Chumps voting for a Manhattan billionaire that they want to believe is their super hero.  I have to admit it's going to be fun watching them grow up and discover reality over the next 4 years.

I'm doing fine.  Looking forward to my $100,000 or so tax cut once President Pussygrabber and his GOP clowns repeal Obamacare -

 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Cut Taxes For High Income Households, Raise Taxes For Many Others

Quote:Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cut taxes significantly for the highest income one percent of US households, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. At the same time, it would raise taxes on average for low- and moderate-income households.

The ACA includes several different tax provisions. On one side of the ledger is the large refundable tax credit that subsidizes insurance premiums for many people who buy coverage on the ACA’s health exchange. On the other side: tax increases designed to both raise revenue and encourage the purchase of adequate—but not excessive--insurance. They include a penalty tax for individuals without adequate insurance, an excise tax on employers with 50 or more workers who offer insufficient coverage, and the so-called Cadillac tax on generous employer-sponsored health benefits. The law also created two extra taxes on high-income individuals--a 0.9 percent payroll surtax on earnings and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 for couples).

Overall, dumping all the ACA taxes would cut taxes by an average of $180 per household in 2017—a 0.3 increase in after-tax incomes. Of course, taxes are not the only measure of people’s well-being. A new analysis by the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center estimates that eliminating the law without adopting a replacement could increase the number of people without insurance by more than 29 million, putting them at risk for out-of-pocket medical costs that would far exceed any tax savings.

Still, it is useful to look at how repealing the law would affect the tax bills of households across the income spectrum.  On average, the lowest-income households (that make less than about $25,000) would see their taxes rise by $90, or about 0.6 percent of their after-tax income. But that average masks a wide variation. Most low-income households would see no change at all in their taxes. But about 7 percent would get a tax cut of about $1,200 on average while 4 percent would face a very big tax hike, averaging nearly $3,900—mostly because they’d lose the benefit of the premium subsidies.
Winners and Losers
Middle-income households, who make between $52,000 and $89,000 would get an average tax increase of $80, but that average also tells only part of the story. About 94 percent would get a small tax cut averaging $110, but 3 percent would be hit with a tax hike averaging $6,200, reflecting the loss of the ACA’s insurance subsidies.
By contrast, nearly everyone in the highest income one percent would enjoy a substantial tax cut, averaging $33,000 or about 2.1 percent of after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would get an average tax cut of about $197,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 2.6 percent, thanks to the repeal of the net investment tax and the extra Medicare tax.
TPC took a closer look at the specific tax changes. For example, repealing the premium subsidies and coverage penalties, which were key to the basic design of the Obama health reform, mostly hurt those in the lowest 40 percent of income, who make about $52,000 or less. The highest income families would see no change in their after-tax incomes, on average, if Congress eliminated those provisions.  
By contrast, high-income households would receive nearly all the benefit of repealing the Medicare surtax and the net investment tax—no surprise since they were the explicit targets of those tax hikes. For instance, 90 percent of the benefit from repeal of the 3.8 percent net investment tax would go to those in the top one percent, who make $774,000 or more. Their 2017 tax cut would average $25,000, or 1.6 percent of their after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would enjoy an average tax cut of $165,000, boosting their after-tax incomes by 2.2 percent.
Medicare Surtax
The pattern is similar with repeal of the Medicare surtax, though the numbers are smaller. More than 99 percent would get no benefit at all. But those in the top one percent would get three-quarters of the benefit—enjoying an average tax cut of $7,300.
The story is very different when it comes to dumping the Cadillac tax. That would cut taxes by an average of $90, but the benefits are distributed much more widely. Middle income households, which make between $52,000 and $89,000, would see an average tax cut of $110, or 0.2 percent of their after-tax income. Those at the very top would see their taxes cut by a few hundred dollars on average, but the tax cut would be inconsequential as a percentage of their income.
TPC also looked at what would happen under full repeal in 2025. The lowest-income 40 percent would pay higher taxes on average, while higher income people would enjoy a substantial tax cut. A few of the lowest-income households would get hit with a big tax hike but most would pay a bit less than under current law. Nearly all high-income people would continue to receive very large tax cuts, with those in the top one percent averaging a cut of $46,000.
In short, the ACA taxes affect different taxpayers in very different ways, but in general, repealing the health reform law would, on average, cut taxes for the rich and raise them for low-income households.

And gee, you 'high earning' Trump Chumps might get a couple hundred bucks!  Whoo-hoo! 
 
Tax cuts that will come from taking decent health insurance away from 39 million people.  Tax cuts that will literally be killing other people.    
 
I'm going to donate my windfall to some of those Trump Chumps that might otherwise die or worse have a child, parent or sibling on the death bed for want of a drug or treatment.   
 
But gee, you 'high-earning' Trump Chumps are the ones that really get the payoff of being able to look down the ladder and see folks worse off that you again.  I'm sure it's nice to afford an extra case of Mad Dog each year, but I bet that superior feeling is what  really gives you a warm and cozy all over.  You must be so proud.  Congratulations on your victory over the less fortunate! 
 


By the way, Cynic Hero is still the angry White dude.  He's not going to be happy until there's a zombie apocalypse and he can directly shoot the less fortunate in thier deserving heads without the authorities getting in the way.  I think he's got his fingers crossed that the Trump regime will give him the okay even without the whole zombie thing.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-15-2016, 09:32 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 03:14 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Playdude!!! How's it going.

Treating people like children doesn't result in tantrums. It results in them quietly voting against your candidate. You haven't figured that out yet?

I do think it's ironic that Rick Perry is going to be the head of a department that he thought should be eliminated. Stick to stuff like that, instead of insulting people.

Were you at the Hillary rally on election night?

No, it's being children that has the Trump Chumps voting for a Manhattan billionaire that they want to believe is their super hero.  I have to admit it's going to be fun watching them grow up and discover reality over the next 4 years.

I'm doing fine.  Looking forward to my $100,000 or so tax cut once President Pussygrabber and his GOP clowns repeal Obamacare -

 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Cut Taxes For High Income Households, Raise Taxes For Many Others

Quote:Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cut taxes significantly for the highest income one percent of US households, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. At the same time, it would raise taxes on average for low- and moderate-income households.

The ACA includes several different tax provisions. On one side of the ledger is the large refundable tax credit that subsidizes insurance premiums for many people who buy coverage on the ACA’s health exchange. On the other side: tax increases designed to both raise revenue and encourage the purchase of adequate—but not excessive--insurance. They include a penalty tax for individuals without adequate insurance, an excise tax on employers with 50 or more workers who offer insufficient coverage, and the so-called Cadillac tax on generous employer-sponsored health benefits. The law also created two extra taxes on high-income individuals--a 0.9 percent payroll surtax on earnings and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income for individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 for couples).

Overall, dumping all the ACA taxes would cut taxes by an average of $180 per household in 2017—a 0.3 increase in after-tax incomes. Of course, taxes are not the only measure of people’s well-being. A new analysis by the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center estimates that eliminating the law without adopting a replacement could increase the number of people without insurance by more than 29 million, putting them at risk for out-of-pocket medical costs that would far exceed any tax savings.

Still, it is useful to look at how repealing the law would affect the tax bills of households across the income spectrum.  On average, the lowest-income households (that make less than about $25,000) would see their taxes rise by $90, or about 0.6 percent of their after-tax income. But that average masks a wide variation. Most low-income households would see no change at all in their taxes. But about 7 percent would get a tax cut of about $1,200 on average while 4 percent would face a very big tax hike, averaging nearly $3,900—mostly because they’d lose the benefit of the premium subsidies.
Winners and Losers
Middle-income households, who make between $52,000 and $89,000 would get an average tax increase of $80, but that average also tells only part of the story. About 94 percent would get a small tax cut averaging $110, but 3 percent would be hit with a tax hike averaging $6,200, reflecting the loss of the ACA’s insurance subsidies.
By contrast, nearly everyone in the highest income one percent would enjoy a substantial tax cut, averaging $33,000 or about 2.1 percent of after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would get an average tax cut of about $197,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 2.6 percent, thanks to the repeal of the net investment tax and the extra Medicare tax.
TPC took a closer look at the specific tax changes. For example, repealing the premium subsidies and coverage penalties, which were key to the basic design of the Obama health reform, mostly hurt those in the lowest 40 percent of income, who make about $52,000 or less. The highest income families would see no change in their after-tax incomes, on average, if Congress eliminated those provisions.  
By contrast, high-income households would receive nearly all the benefit of repealing the Medicare surtax and the net investment tax—no surprise since they were the explicit targets of those tax hikes. For instance, 90 percent of the benefit from repeal of the 3.8 percent net investment tax would go to those in the top one percent, who make $774,000 or more. Their 2017 tax cut would average $25,000, or 1.6 percent of their after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1 percent would enjoy an average tax cut of $165,000, boosting their after-tax incomes by 2.2 percent.
Medicare Surtax
The pattern is similar with repeal of the Medicare surtax, though the numbers are smaller. More than 99 percent would get no benefit at all. But those in the top one percent would get three-quarters of the benefit—enjoying an average tax cut of $7,300.
The story is very different when it comes to dumping the Cadillac tax. That would cut taxes by an average of $90, but the benefits are distributed much more widely. Middle income households, which make between $52,000 and $89,000, would see an average tax cut of $110, or 0.2 percent of their after-tax income. Those at the very top would see their taxes cut by a few hundred dollars on average, but the tax cut would be inconsequential as a percentage of their income.
TPC also looked at what would happen under full repeal in 2025. The lowest-income 40 percent would pay higher taxes on average, while higher income people would enjoy a substantial tax cut. A few of the lowest-income households would get hit with a big tax hike but most would pay a bit less than under current law. Nearly all high-income people would continue to receive very large tax cuts, with those in the top one percent averaging a cut of $46,000.
In short, the ACA taxes affect different taxpayers in very different ways, but in general, repealing the health reform law would, on average, cut taxes for the rich and raise them for low-income households.

And gee, you 'high earning' Trump Chumps might get a couple hundred bucks!  Whoo-hoo! 
 
Tax cuts that will come from taking decent health insurance away from 39 million people.  Tax cuts that will literally be killing other people.    
 
I'm going to donate my windfall to some of those Trump Chumps that might otherwise die or worse have a child, parent or sibling on the death bed for want of a drug or treatment.   
 
But gee, you 'high-earning' Trump Chumps are the ones that really get the payoff of being able to look down the ladder and see folks worse off that you again.  I'm sure it's nice to afford an extra case of Mad Dog each year, but I bet that superior feeling is what  really gives you a warm and cozy all over.  You must be so proud.  Congratulations on your victory over the less fortunate! 
 


By the way, Cynic Hero is still the angry White dude.  He's not going to be happy until there's a zombie apocalypse and he can directly shoot the less fortunate in thier deserving heads without the authorities getting in the way.  I think he's got his fingers crossed that the Trump regime will give him the okay even without the whole zombie thing.

I think I'll be making some serious money from now on. According to you, you'll have a $100,000 that you could give to the less fortunate assuming that you actually do care about the less fortunate.

[Galen]

(12-12-2016, 11:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/clinton...atar-gift/  

Many lefties know she is a crook but as long as Clinton is their crook is OK.

[Galen]

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 04:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

I hope you did not really mean killing people who oppose you in thought.

We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

[Odin]

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote: Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

Our protests are actually real protests, rather than Koch family astroturf.

[radind]

The USA is in bad shape. Time for reflection and healing. Enough talk of violence.

[pbrower2a]

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the ultra-conservative congressman tapped by Donald Trump to run the Office of Management and Budget, recently accepted a speaking invitation from the notorious John Birch Society, an extreme right-wing group known for peddling outlandish conspiracy theories for more than half a century.

In July, Mulvaney spoke at a dinner held by a local chapter of the group, which has long been exiled from mainstream conservatism. Founded in the 1950s, the outfit promoted a paranoid obsession with communist infiltration. It declared President Dwight Eisenhower "a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy." It opposed the civil rights movement as a communist plot. Ever since William F. Buckley Jr., the intellectual godfather of modern conservatism, felt compelled to disavow the John Birch Society in the early 1960s, most mainstream conservatives have dismissed the organization as an embarrassment for the right. But the group still exists and continues to emphasize the communist threat. In recent years, it has pushed more modern conspiracy theories: Obamacare finances euthanasia, the United Nations has a sinister scheme for world domination, Moscow is the hidden force behind Islamic terrorism.

But Mulvaney was fine with speaking to the group. His July speech, flagged by the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge, was billed as an address on "the Federal Reserve's role in bailing out Europe." According to its website, the John Birch Society believes that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and should be abolished and that "the only constitutional money is gold and silver coin."

After South Carolina Democrats criticized Mulvaney for appearing before the group, he defended the decision, saying, "I regularly speak to groups across the political spectrum because my constituents deserve access to their congressman. I can't remember ever turning down an opportunity to speak to a group based on the group’s political ideology."
Mulvaney, who will be tasked with crafting Trump's budget and ensuring the effectiveness of federal government agencies, will require Senate confirmation before he can assume his post.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...ch-society

[Classic-Xer]

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 04:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: I hope you did not really mean killing people who oppose you in thought.

We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

[Eric the Green]

(12-19-2016, 03:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:17 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 08:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 05:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We are in uncharted territory. This could well be this century's equivalent to Vichy or Quisling. If it's proved that Trump & company are unregistered foreign agents, it means they violated several federal election laws, these are serious felonies. If it is further proved they aided and abetted cyberwar, it is treason. Should supporting groups revolt, the National Guard would be within rights to shoot them.

Disgusting. Well I do not condone murder as the "right" option.

Many on the left do.  Why do you think their protests tend to be more violent?

I do not know enough on left or right wing protests to measure them up against each other and I need real life comparisons and context to what each protest was about to safely make that judgement whether left wing protests or right wing protests are more violent. As far as I am concerned right now both have their good and their bad points. Both are not without stains and they can thank lack of self reflection ad outer reflection on what their parties stand for and what some individuals who are either right or left wing do....they can also thank their shit media and internal corruption of both parties. Neither is innocent so I refuse to pick a side till I see a fkn clean up instead of pointing fingers.

Left wing protests are more violent in America. The American left wing has more of a mob rule mentality (low life mentality) than the American right.

I think one violent right-wing protester managed to rack up a death toll likely greater than the entire death toll from left wing violence in US history. 

His name was Timothy McVeigh.

Also, I'd say the right-wing rebellion entitled "The Civil War" had a pretty big death toll, wouldn't you? Although some of the initial provocations by John Brown had a death toll too.

[David Horn]

(12-19-2016, 02:16 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/clinton...atar-gift/  

Many lefties know she is a crook but as long as Clinton is their crook is OK.

... and Trump is a narcissistic egomaniacal greed-head, yet the GOP is buying into Trump 100%.  Pot ... kettle ... black!