Connect The Dots: Bill's Wife To Be Indicted?????

[PoliticalChic]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

1. Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part.
2. Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years.

Of course, I can see how the diseased mind of a crazy right winger might try to twist things.

1. "Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part."

Where could you have gotten that idea???????

Nowhere in this thread.

Try again when you sober up.


2. "Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years."

Obviously you have no business using the word 'sane,' having so little association with the concept.

Now...focus like a laser: when as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton ever attacked Obama like that before?

He didn't attack Obama. He noted the obstruction that Obama has faced. What purpose would it serve anyway? Do you think Hillary is trying to distance herself from Obama? Is Obama somehow her opponent in this election? What does any of this have to do with the title of the OP? Either you have not made your point clearly, or you have some massive gaps in your logic. How do either of the claims you make indicate Hillary is to be indicted?

Now...see....you just threw all the folks who imagined that you could read, under the bus!


From that link:

"Bill Clinton is either losing it, or he’s ramping up his attacks on President Obama. Neither is good news for Hillary Clinton.

During a rally in Spokane, Washington on Monday, Clinton seemed to tear down Obama to boost his wife."


Try again?

 

[ogibillm]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

Same reason they didn't indict Rangel, there's so much corruption that if you have been there long enough and have enough dirt on others you basically have immunity.

No....not the question.

What I asked is your explanation for Warren suddenly attacking Trump, if not that she sees an opportunity for her to replace Bill's wife.

and...

Bill 'the rapist' Clinton's full frontal attack if not his seething at learning that an indictment is imminent.


And you say....?

so it's your premise that elizabeth warren would never say a bad thing about trump unless she believed hillary was about to be indicted?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

Easy. 1. Since when has it taken much to set Trump off? 2. Bill was talking about the Republicans when he mentioned the "awful legacy".

1. Clearly, Leftists can't read.
Must be government schooling.
"Since when has it taken much to set Trump off?
Not Trump, you dolt.

..this is the operative part: "...After Her Twitter Tirade Against Him"


See...that's why I wrote "Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???"


Don't hesitate to ask if you require the posts in some other language than English.


2. "Bill was talking about the Republicans when he mentioned the "awful legacy""
You just moved from dolt to moron.

This was the headline provided:
"Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’"



I may have misjudged you....perhaps you're simply a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here are two of those 'dots'...


1. "Trump Refers to Sen. Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian' After Her Twitter Tirade Against Him" Trump Refers to Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian'

Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???



2. "VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’"VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’
Why this caustic attack on Obama???


A radio called connected those dots this way: Hillary is about to be indicted...and Warren is looking to fill the vacancy....
And Bill....now the reason for the attack is obvious.


Could be?

Here's hoping.

Indictments coming down any day now, any day.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

They will be saying the same after she enters the White House as Madam President..

Nah, starting from day 1 of her presidency, the kooks won't be calling for indictments anymore, they will be calling for impeachment, for no particular reason.

For clarity....if she produces a list such as that in post #34, would that be a 'particular reason'????

 

[ogibillm]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

Easy. 1. Since when has it taken much to set Trump off? 2. Bill was talking about the Republicans when he mentioned the "awful legacy".

1. Clearly, Leftists can't read.
Must be government schooling.
"Since when has it taken much to set Trump off?
Not Trump, you dolt.

..this is the operative part: "...After Her Twitter Tirade Against Him"


See...that's why I wrote "Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???"


Don't hesitate to ask if you require the posts in some other language than English.


2. "Bill was talking about the Republicans when he mentioned the "awful legacy""
You just moved from dolt to moron.

This was the headline provided:
"Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’"



I may have misjudged you....perhaps you're simply a liar.

1) what set warren off? donald trump.
2) that you found an ambiguous headline doesn't change what clinton said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The "Justice Dept" pretty much works for the A.G. and the A.G. works for Barry Hussein. In light of the A.G.'s remark that Americans could be prosecuted for insulting a Muslem it ain't likely that a crooked democrat administration would put a case together and indict another democrat no matter how serious the crimes are. I hope I'm wrong though.

What???

You don't believe in miracles?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

Same reason they didn't indict Rangel, there's so much corruption that if you have been there long enough and have enough dirt on others you basically have immunity.

No....not the question.

What I asked is your explanation for Warren suddenly attacking Trump, if not that she sees an opportunity for her to replace Bill's wife.

and...

Bill 'the rapist' Clinton's full frontal attack if not his seething at learning that an indictment is imminent.


And you say....?

so it's your premise that elizabeth warren would never say a bad thing about trump unless she believed hillary was about to be indicted?

"so it's your premise that elizabeth warren would never say a bad thing about trump"

No it isn't.

The question is one of motive.

Why the sudden flurry of tweets from the fake Indian, now???

Does she smell blood in the water?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here are two of those 'dots'...


1. "Trump Refers to Sen. Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian' After Her Twitter Tirade Against Him" Trump Refers to Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian'

Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???



2. "VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’"VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’
Why this caustic attack on Obama???


A radio caller connected those dots this way: Hillary is about to be indicted...and Warren is looking to fill the vacancy....
And Bill....now the reason for the attack is obvious.


Could be?

Here's hoping.

Another failed OP from Chica. Two more UNRELATED C&P's to start a thread with the damned conclusion of the OP coming from some freakin' unnamed caller on some unnamed radio talk show.

You do realize, don't you Chica, that your entire intellectual contribution to the OP is exactly ZERO! You are such a bloody phony, narcissistic want to be! Basically, you're a waste of fucking oxygen, a failed propagandist and I also strongly doubt you currently have the talent or ability to formulate an actual logical intellectual argument AND are able to write such in proper prose without using you outline crutch.

You're never going to measure up to your hero and heroines; Coulter, Rand or von Mises. And you're certainly not fooling anyone drawing breath. You're just a pseudointellectual, Chica...among a few other negative descriptors already cover by myself and many others multiple times.

pseudointellectual;

noun
1. a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2. a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

adjective
3. of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly:
a pseudointellectual book.
< the definition of pseudointellectual >

 

[g5000]

Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???

Trump's success. Not some imaginary pending indictment, idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

1. Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part.
2. Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years.

Of course, I can see how the diseased mind of a crazy right winger might try to twist things.

1. "Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part."

Where could you have gotten that idea???????

Nowhere in this thread.

Try again when you sober up.


2. "Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years."

Obviously you have no business using the word 'sane,' having so little association with the concept.

Now...focus like a laser: when as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton ever attacked Obama like that before?

He didn't attack Obama. He noted the obstruction that Obama has faced. What purpose would it serve anyway? Do you think Hillary is trying to distance herself from Obama? Is Obama somehow her opponent in this election? What does any of this have to do with the title of the OP? Either you have not made your point clearly, or you have some massive gaps in your logic. How do either of the claims you make indicate Hillary is to be indicted?

Now...see....you just threw all the folks who imagined that you could read, under the bus!


From that link:

"Bill Clinton is either losing it, or he’s ramping up his attacks on President Obama. Neither is good news for Hillary Clinton.

During a rally in Spokane, Washington on Monday, Clinton seemed to tear down Obama to boost his wife."


Try again?

I'm sure it seemed that way to you, but that's just nuts. How could tearing down Obama help his wife? if you can explain that,you might have a point. There isn't much difference between the two. Your desire to see friction there has warped your comprehension of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lizzy Cheekbones is warming up in the sitting bullpen and ready to step in for Hillary

 

[ZackB]

Policy chick, you are an idiot and a dumb chink. You ought to fall on your fucking sword already and stop bringing shame down upon your family. Hillary, though I despise her as a vile bitch, will not be indicted. Obama does not have the balls. They may scapegoat an underling, but I doubt even that.

Now, don't get confused, my widdle bowl of chicken chow mein. I hate Hillary and Obama and would to see them both banished. But let's not get wacky here, detached from reality.

So stop smoking your Ginseng and open your eyes (get it?). Obama is undoubtedly fucking with the Clintons, and Billy Boy was hitting back. But that's it. Barry wants access post-presidency, and he will get it if Hillary is elected.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lizzy Cheekbones is warming up in the sitting bullpen and ready to step in for Hillary

I'd say all she needs is another Indian food recipe, and she'd have all the qualifications she could need!


"Did Elizabeth Warren Plagiarize Her 'Pow Wow Chow' Recipes?"
Did Elizabeth Warren Plagiarize Her 'Pow Wow Chow' Recipes? - Breitbart

 

[ZackB]

I bet Polyanna is feverishly typing a complaint to Westhall right now.

 

[BULLDOG]

Lizzy Cheekbones is warming up in the sitting bullpen and ready to step in for Hillary

I'd say all she needs is another Indian food recipe, and she'd have all the qualifications she could need!


"Did Elizabeth Warren Plagiarize Her 'Pow Wow Chow' Recipes?"
Did Elizabeth Warren Plagiarize Her 'Pow Wow Chow' Recipes? - Breitbart

You started a dumb thread. You can either continue trying to defend your poorly thought out points and reinforce your reputation as an idiot, or you can just let it go and try something else. Your call.

 

[ogibillm]

Hillary has too much dirt on other politicians to be indicted, never going to happen imo.

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

Same reason they didn't indict Rangel, there's so much corruption that if you have been there long enough and have enough dirt on others you basically have immunity.

No....not the question.

What I asked is your explanation for Warren suddenly attacking Trump, if not that she sees an opportunity for her to replace Bill's wife.

and...

Bill 'the rapist' Clinton's full frontal attack if not his seething at learning that an indictment is imminent.


And you say....?

so it's your premise that elizabeth warren would never say a bad thing about trump unless she believed hillary was about to be indicted?

"so it's your premise that elizabeth warren would never say a bad thing about trump"

No it isn't.

The question is one of motive.

Why the sudden flurry of tweets from the fake Indian, now???

Does she smell blood in the water?

quite the imagination you have.

 

[ogibillm]

I'd love to hear your explanation for the two 'dots.'

1. Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part.
2. Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years.

Of course, I can see how the diseased mind of a crazy right winger might try to twist things.

1. "Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part."

Where could you have gotten that idea???????

Nowhere in this thread.

Try again when you sober up.


2. "Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years."

Obviously you have no business using the word 'sane,' having so little association with the concept.

Now...focus like a laser: when as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton ever attacked Obama like that before?

He didn't attack Obama. He noted the obstruction that Obama has faced. What purpose would it serve anyway? Do you think Hillary is trying to distance herself from Obama? Is Obama somehow her opponent in this election? What does any of this have to do with the title of the OP? Either you have not made your point clearly, or you have some massive gaps in your logic. How do either of the claims you make indicate Hillary is to be indicted?

Now...see....you just threw all the folks who imagined that you could read, under the bus!


From that link:

"Bill Clinton is either losing it, or he’s ramping up his attacks on President Obama. Neither is good news for Hillary Clinton.

During a rally in Spokane, Washington on Monday, Clinton seemed to tear down Obama to boost his wife."


Try again?

I'm sure it seemed that way to you, but that's just nuts. How could tearing down Obama help his wife? if you can explain that,you might have a point. There isn't much difference between the two. Your desire to see friction there has warped your comprehension of reality.

and it completely ignores the multitude of times that both bill and hillary clinton have praised obama.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part.
2. Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years.

Of course, I can see how the diseased mind of a crazy right winger might try to twist things.

1. "Warren is not Clinton, so I fail to see how Trumps insult can indicate any wrong doing on Hillary's part."

Where could you have gotten that idea???????

Nowhere in this thread.

Try again when you sober up.


2. "Any sane person would see the awful legacy he was referring to was the constant obstruction and gridlock practiced by the right over the last 8 years."

Obviously you have no business using the word 'sane,' having so little association with the concept.

Now...focus like a laser: when as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton ever attacked Obama like that before?

He didn't attack Obama. He noted the obstruction that Obama has faced. What purpose would it serve anyway? Do you think Hillary is trying to distance herself from Obama? Is Obama somehow her opponent in this election? What does any of this have to do with the title of the OP? Either you have not made your point clearly, or you have some massive gaps in your logic. How do either of the claims you make indicate Hillary is to be indicted?

Now...see....you just threw all the folks who imagined that you could read, under the bus!


From that link:

"Bill Clinton is either losing it, or he’s ramping up his attacks on President Obama. Neither is good news for Hillary Clinton.

During a rally in Spokane, Washington on Monday, Clinton seemed to tear down Obama to boost his wife."


Try again?

I'm sure it seemed that way to you, but that's just nuts. How could tearing down Obama help his wife? if you can explain that,you might have a point. There isn't much difference between the two. Your desire to see friction there has warped your comprehension of reality.

and it completely ignores the multitude of times that both bill and hillary clinton have praised obama.

None of that matters. Someone on AM radio told her that is what happened, and that's all she cares about.

 

[rightwinger]

Here are two of those 'dots'...


1. "Trump Refers to Sen. Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian' After Her Twitter Tirade Against Him" Trump Refers to Elizabeth Warren as 'The Indian'

Now....what set Warren off, suddenly???



2. "VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’"VIDEO: Bill Clinton slams ‘awful legacy of last 8 years’
Why this caustic attack on Obama???


A radio caller connected those dots this way: Hillary is about to be indicted...and Warren is looking to fill the vacancy....
And Bill....now the reason for the attack is obvious.


Could be?

Here's hoping.

Elizabeth Warren did not claim to be that kind of Indian

Feathers not dots

 

[g5000]

PoliticalChic sees two dots and draws the plans for an intergalactic UFO from them.