Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,073
- Thread starter
- #101
he's being influenced by pro Russian moles in his campaign....Trump likes being number one. The presidency is something he has hinted about all his life. He is not a second banana type guy. He also doesn't like failure. He will appoint poeple who will actually carry most of the load as will Hillary. The question becomes, who do you want running the country, people picked by corrupt Hillary based on how much money they gave the Clinton foundation. Or do you want Trump who appears to be realitively free of all outside influence, including his "own" Republican party.Wrong. Trump is the only one that had/has a chance. No matter who the pick would be the left smear machine would try to grind him down. Look at what they did to Romney. At least Trump is willing to fight back. Yes it does take an ego to do that but if you don't think Hillary has a swelled head you're pretty far gone.
I actually think Hillary is a scary, psychotic, warmongering wall street puppet and I would much rather see Trump in the oval office
But I just can't escape the impression that they're in it together. Why would Trump want to be pretzeldent, he doesn't like responsibility, he has never cared about political power and he sure as hell doesn't give a damn about ordinary people? It has to be an act, nobody could screw up his own campaign that much by accident
![]()
![]()
Above all that the one singular issue that must not be given to Hillary are the SCOTUS nominations. No way we can let her decided the court for the next 30 years. NO WAY.
And Once Again.....the Clintons get no money from the charity donation....the donations the Foundation gets is for CHARITY programs....
STOP the bull crud....
TRUMP is the crooked one, who DID use his charity as a SLUSH FUND....he's the CROOK....
From the NYTs at the following location:
The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton’s neck.
Mrs. Clinton’s critics — many of whom have spent more than 20 years exploiting every opening the Clintons give them (of which there are many) — will continue to hound Mrs. Clinton about the foundation throughout the campaign and, should she win, during her presidency.
This is not the typical foundation funded by family wealth earned by an industrialist or financier. This foundation was funded almost entirely by donors, and to the extent anyone in the Clinton family “earned” the money, it was largely through speaking fees for former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when she was not secretary of state. This dependence on donations — a scenario remarkably similar to that of many political campaigns — means that the motivations of every single donor will be questioned whenever a President Clinton does anything that could conceivably benefit such donors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/opinion/the-real-clinton-foundation-revelation.html?_r=0