You ever wonder why he has so many rallies? I mean, the election is over. I swear, both parties carry on like the election hasn't happened yet. And I don't mean in a campaigning for your party, for future elections kind of way. I mean both parties act like Donald Trump is still running against Hillary Clinton. It's annoying. That damn election was 9 months ago.
No I never looked at his talking to American people as rallies. I see Trump reminding Americans of reality. The Clinton Fondation, E-mails etc. Inspector General reports Obama mislead the American People is what was not Headline news as it should be who else will remind the people of the corruption that was voted out?
Notice Trump does not use a teleprompter. He tells the people what they need to hear not what they want to hear....
0
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
You ever wonder why he has so many rallies? I mean, the election is over. I swear, both parties carry on like the election hasn't happened yet. And I don't mean in a campaigning for your party, for future elections kind of way. I mean both parties act like Donald Trump is still running against Hillary Clinton. It's annoying. That damn election was 9 months ago.
No I never looked at his talking to American people as rallies. I see Trump reminding Americans of reality. The Clinton Fondation, E-mails etc. Inspector General reports Obama mislead the American People is what was not Headline news as it should be who else will remind the people of the corruption that was voted out?
Notice Trump does not use a teleprompter. He tells the people what they need to hear not what they want to hear....
Time out about the Clinton Foundation......80 to 90% of the donations received go directly to charity. They don't get financially rewarded but it certainly boosted their image world-wide.
They have definitely taken donations from foreign governments & those are reported as such. Sure there could be conflict of interest concerns but the Clinton's made their money from book advancements & huge speaking fees.
On the whole, the foundation is highly rated by watchdog groups.
0
Time out about the Clinton Foundation......80 to 90% of the donations received go directly to charity. They don't get financially rewarded but it certainly boosted their image world-wide.
They have definitely taken donations from foreign governments & those are reported as such. Sure there could be conflict of interest concerns but the Clinton's made their money from book advancements & huge speaking fees.
On the whole, the foundation is highly rated by watchdog groups.
There are many questionable Clinton Foundation donations ..one troubling donation was from one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies tied to the Kremlin.
The chairman of the uranium mining company donated $2.35 million to the
foundation, without any disclosure from the Clintons.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite
an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to
publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made
donations as well....Hillary Clinton never disclosed those contributions to the White House or State Department officials either
After Russia
announced its intention to make a bid for the uranium mining company,
former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 (among Bill Clinton’s highest )to deliver a one hour speech in Moscow. So it's not true that the Clinton's and their foundation were not financially rewarded..
0
There are many questionable Clinton Foundation donations ..one troubling donation was from one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies tied to the Kremlin.
The chairman of the uranium mining company donated $2.35 million to the
foundation, without any disclosure from the Clintons.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite
an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to
publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made
donations as well....Hillary Clinton never disclosed those contributions to the White House or State Department officials either
After Russia
announced its intention to make a bid for the uranium mining company,
former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 (among Bill Clinton’s highest )to deliver a one hour speech in Moscow. So it's not true that the Clinton's and their foundation were not financially rewarded..
Clinton, as America’s top foreign policy official, had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption, as Trump has done several times, or calling it a “Bill and Hillary deal.”
First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state.
The New York Times reported that only one of the other donations came through at the same time that the deal was taking place.
You do know the Trumpster paid the largest fine in NJ casino history for money laundering &the Special Counsel has requested the documents from FinCen regarding those & other activities.
0
Via Newsweek....
Clinton, as America’s top foreign policy official, had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption, as Trump has done several times, or calling it a “Bill and Hillary deal.”
First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state.
The New York Times reported that only one of the other donations came through at the same time that the deal was taking place.
You do know the Trumpster paid the largest fine in NJ casino history for money laundering &the Special Counsel has requested the documents from FinCen regarding those & other activities.
Clinton, as America’s top foreign policy official, had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption, as Trump has done several times, or calling it a “Bill and Hillary deal.”
First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state.
The New York Times reported that only one of the other donations came through at the same time that the deal was taking place.
You do know the Trumpster paid the largest fine in NJ casino history for money laundering &the Special Counsel has requested the documents from FinCen regarding those & other activities.
Unrelated to the Clinton Foundation donations or former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000to deliver a one hour speech in Moscow...
Obviously a quid pro quo took place while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
Via Newsweek....
Clinton, as America’s top foreign policy official, had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption, as Trump has done several times, or calling it a “Bill and Hillary deal.”
First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state.
The New York Times reported that only one of the other donations came through at the same time that the deal was taking place.
You do know the Trumpster paid the largest fine in NJ casino history for money laundering &the Special Counsel has requested the documents from FinCen regarding those & other activities.
Unrelated to the Clinton Foundation donations or former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000to deliver a one hour speech in Moscow...
Obviously a quid pro quo took place while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
We had the weakest group of crooks, pseudo intellects, phonies & wannabees run for president in 2016. I don't see leadership in the House or Congress or anyone on the horizon that can bring the country together. Maybe there's a Governor out there that can make a connection.
We better get our act together.
some people need to grow up and accept that the majority voted this guy in, and he came out of nowhere
0
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
We had the weakest group of crooks, pseudo intellects, phonies & wannabees run for president in 2016. I don't see leadership in the House or Congress or anyone on the horizon that can bring the country together. Maybe there's a Governor out there that can make a connection.
We better get our act together.
some people need to grow up and accept that the majority voted this guy in, and he came out of nowhere
Tweeting and speaking as I said above....... Telling people what they should hear not like
Interesting to watch Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about hoax Russian collusion when he was a phony Vietnam con artist!
Trump thinks Blumenthal should take a vacation........ in Vietnam
Only about 40 more months to "Drain The Swamp" Blumenthal is in office since it looks like 2011. Hope the Huskie State will help Blumenthal take his vacation
0
Tweeting and speaking as I said above....... Telling people what they should hear not like
Interesting to watch Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about hoax Russian collusion when he was a phony Vietnam con artist!
Trump thinks Blumenthal should take a vacation........ in Vietnam
Only about 40 more months to "Drain The Swamp" Blumenthal is in office since it looks like 2011. Hope the Huskie State will help Blumenthal take his vacation
Tweeting and speaking as I said above....... Telling people what they should hear not like
Interesting to watch Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about hoax Russian collusion when he was a phony Vietnam con artist!
Trump thinks Blumenthal should take a vacation........ in Vietnam
Only about 40 more months to "Drain The Swamp" Blumenthal is in office since it looks like 2011. Hope the Huskie State will help Blumenthal take his vacation
No doubt Blumenthal lied but he did eventually serve 6 years in the Marines Reserves..
President Blowhard never served in the armed forces & has a penchant for attacking those who did like Blumenthal & John McCain. When you don't serve, you don't have a "right" to talk about it. In fact, most who have served rarely speak of it because of what we have seen & done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by skoda:
Tweeting and speaking as I said above....... Telling people what they should hear not like
Interesting to watch Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about hoax Russian collusion when he was a phony Vietnam con artist!
Trump thinks Blumenthal should take a vacation........ in Vietnam
Only about 40 more months to "Drain The Swamp" Blumenthal is in office since it looks like 2011. Hope the Huskie State will help Blumenthal take his vacation
No doubt Blumenthal lied but he did eventually serve 6 years in the Marines Reserves..
President Blowhard never served in the armed forces & has a penchant for attacking those who did like Blumenthal & John McCain. When you don't serve, you don't have a "right" to talk about it. In fact, most who have served rarely speak of it because of what we have seen & done.
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
0
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
When does your subscription to breitbart run out?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
Other than deflect, I will reflect back on the numerous commentary, and analysis given by no other than Debbie (Ms purity) Wasserman on CNN/Kate Bolduan, enough fake- news to make any republican, or democrat nauseated .
Just think, what we new about Ms. Wasserman then...and what we have recently found out about her presently....does the Bullsh!t get any deeper here??? how far will CNN take this consistent bashing of a United States President? and how on earth does Kate Bolduan get away with out right lies on her newscasts every fvckin' day in and day out? Oh, and quiet as it's kept, have you ever wondered what happened to the notorious Ana Navarro? of CNN; Trump bashing fame.. Fired, another protégé of who else? you guest it, Kate Bolduan..just saying
what lies are you referring to ?
when did "Republican Strategist Ana Navarro get fired ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by sports_Network:
Other than deflect, I will reflect back on the numerous commentary, and analysis given by no other than Debbie (Ms purity) Wasserman on CNN/Kate Bolduan, enough fake- news to make any republican, or democrat nauseated .
Just think, what we new about Ms. Wasserman then...and what we have recently found out about her presently....does the Bullsh!t get any deeper here??? how far will CNN take this consistent bashing of a United States President? and how on earth does Kate Bolduan get away with out right lies on her newscasts every fvckin' day in and day out? Oh, and quiet as it's kept, have you ever wondered what happened to the notorious Ana Navarro? of CNN; Trump bashing fame.. Fired, another protégé of who else? you guest it, Kate Bolduan..just saying
what lies are you referring to ?
when did "Republican Strategist Ana Navarro get fired ?
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
Roughly 54% of eligible voter turned out to vote. Trump garnered slightly less than half of those votes. Clinton slightly more and some votes went to Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, etc. That's roughly 1 in 4 eligible voters voting for Trump.
I don't know why this is difficult to understand?
No one is arguing that Trump won. But to say that he "dominated" is very naive.
I know you can pull up maps of red land that voted for Trump and argue about Trump winning x amount of counties and blah, blah, blah. It boils down to this though: Trump was able to win a few swing states that mattered by a few percentage points. He BARELY won against the most unpopular candidate in a long time, if not ever.
This is the thing: people vote, not land. I've said this before in here and I'll say it again. I currently reside in Nevada. You can win 95% of the counties here, and still lose the state. That's a lot of counties and a lot of red, uninhabited land on a map. It doesn't matter in the end.
It doesn't matter to me. I didn't vote for HRC or Trump. I don't care who won because I knew my candidate going in, wasn't going to win.
I just think that you need to grow up and accept that Trump didn't win by all that much. He isn't doing a very good job so far and is extremely unpopular right now. If the Dems can put up a halfway decent candidate Trump is probably going to lose, unless he does something significant from now til then.
I encourage you to click on the "close races" section of the link below and see close this was to going the other way. After you do that, envision a candidate that isn't as awful as HRC running against Trump now.
PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP AND ACCEPT THAT HE WON, roughly one in four votes? nice rough estimate. he ROUGHLY dominated. better? even with LA having 4 million illegals vote for hillary. no great job! please tell us how the russian ties went, oh ya total BS
Roughly 54% of eligible voter turned out to vote. Trump garnered slightly less than half of those votes. Clinton slightly more and some votes went to Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, etc. That's roughly 1 in 4 eligible voters voting for Trump.
I don't know why this is difficult to understand?
No one is arguing that Trump won. But to say that he "dominated" is very naive.
I know you can pull up maps of red land that voted for Trump and argue about Trump winning x amount of counties and blah, blah, blah. It boils down to this though: Trump was able to win a few swing states that mattered by a few percentage points. He BARELY won against the most unpopular candidate in a long time, if not ever.
This is the thing: people vote, not land. I've said this before in here and I'll say it again. I currently reside in Nevada. You can win 95% of the counties here, and still lose the state. That's a lot of counties and a lot of red, uninhabited land on a map. It doesn't matter in the end.
It doesn't matter to me. I didn't vote for HRC or Trump. I don't care who won because I knew my candidate going in, wasn't going to win.
I just think that you need to grow up and accept that Trump didn't win by all that much. He isn't doing a very good job so far and is extremely unpopular right now. If the Dems can put up a halfway decent candidate Trump is probably going to lose, unless he does something significant from now til then.
I encourage you to click on the "close races" section of the link below and see close this was to going the other way. After you do that, envision a candidate that isn't as awful as HRC running against Trump now.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
