Sigh!
You implied all opposition to her was based on sexism. You at least didn’t leave the possibility open that it could be something else - like disagreeing with the majority of he policies, or not caring for her body of work.
No. I don’t believe number 3 is true. Haven’t you seen polls for Condi Rice as a possible Republican candidate? We’ve elected several Republican Governors too. You’re portraying the cartoonish version of Republicans that exists in your head - the sexist, racist Republicans.Sigh!
I happened to list it randomly, and naturally, "femaleness" came first because the topic of the discussion was just that. To satisfy your perfect holiness, I will restate:
Are you happy now or do you have another nit-picking?
- she is a Democrat.
- she has phony smile.
- she is a female. Conservatives are a long way to go to accept a female to the highest office in the land.
Good Lord, what has this board become? Aloha has become Rev. Van!
Sigh!
I happened to list it randomly, and naturally, "femaleness" came first because the topic of the discussion was just that. To satisfy your perfect holiness, I will restate:
Are you happy now or do you have another nit-picking?
- she is a Democrat.
- she has phony smile.
- she is a female. Conservatives are a long way to go to accept a female to the highest office in the land.
Good Lord, what has this board become? Aloha has become Rev. Van!
And you’re in deep denial if you don’t think PART of the opposition and attacks on Hillary were misogynist. In this very thread we have a Trump supporter calling her a drunken hag.No. I don’t believe number 3 is true. Haven’t you seen polls for Condi Rice as a possible Republican candidate? We’ve elected several Republican Governors too. You’re portraying the cartoonish version of Republicans that exists in your head - the sexist, racist Republicans.Sigh!
I happened to list it randomly, and naturally, "femaleness" came first because the topic of the discussion was just that. To satisfy your perfect holiness, I will restate:
Are you happy now or do you have another nit-picking?
- she is a Democrat.
- she has phony smile.
- she is a female. Conservatives are a long way to go to accept a female to the highest office in the land.
Good Lord, what has this board become? Aloha has become Rev. Van!
I don’t understand what value this line of discussion provides. Do you have good data that a statistically significant reason for people voting against Hillary is that she is a She?
The Dems should emphasize good public policy and equitable enforcement of laws that benefit all. But the reality is that white identity and gender politics are at the core of Trumpism and the #NewGOP. I don't think we can ignore that reality either.
You are dreaming!
Sure. Some disliked her because she's a woman. That's NOT what I was arguing against. What I'm arguing against is the constant snarky and witless posts that Republicans disliked Obama because he was brown skinned or Republicans opposed HRC because she's a woman. It's nonsense and it's irritatingly juvenile.
Found the first answer. It is Allen Weisselberg, but it turns out he is with the Trump Organization not the Trump Campaign.
You quote a passage saying the "family" felt Manafort hadn't been "entirely forthright" about his activities overseas. That sounds like the "family" tried to distance itself from Manafort but the statement amounts to an admission that it knew about many of his activities overseas. This brings everything full circle back to the central question: did the "family" know about Manafort activities that were illegal?
There are a gazillion actions that are not crimes. Your task as an intelligent poster is to spot Trump's action that constitutes a crime. Otherwise, you have nothing to discuss here. Just saying he didn't, he didn't, he didn't is being a granny poster.
There's a difference between Republicans and Trump supporters. Inveterate Trump supporters want a return to the America of Leave it to Beaver. Brown's absent in that black and white picture, as are a lot of other things.
Here, I fixed it for you: "Solicitation for a lawyer to obtain a non-disclosure agreement is not a crime sometimes."
I don’t disagree with what you say above but i suspect that our threshold of what constitutes “politically motivated prosecution” in such a case. Obviously this case is evolving and we don’t yet have all the info - but I worry that too many of his disciples won’t accept rock solid evidence of criminal activity as him doing anything wrong.
I looked but found no evidence that Hillary had or has a drinking problem. Modern feminism does not say "men are the devil, white men should die, the world would be better off without men". Hillary the "hag" is a figment of your imagination.
You need a visit to HR. To start with your first sentence to me is sexist. Getting your panties in a twist? Try saying that to someone at work. This isn’t Mad Men days and it sounds like no one calls you on your bs. You don’t even know what is sexist and what is misogynist. As for your definition of feminism....laughable. Sounds like you could stand to do some research, but I’m sure you have no inclination. Just as you have no understanding of why women are so angry right now. The drunken part is a figment of your imagination. It’s funny how much you hate Hillary and her husband, but you continue to support the most corrupt man and administration ever in office. We are learning more every day, but most of us already knew that. You should be embarrassed that you’re the person he was talking about when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would care. Because Hillary, the drunken hag.
How can anyone say the Clintons have not been scrutinized with a serious face? Every little thing they have done for decades has been scrutinized. Hillary’s emails dominated the entire campaign. Trump’s were one day stories. Everyone in NYC knew what everyone else is now finding out, that Trump is dirty as the day is long. Why didn’t the press harp on that and dig into that so we wouldn’t be going through it now?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...dia-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/. But Hillary wasn’t scrutinized. Besides how many months of Benghazi hearings and hours of her actually testifying? All of which Gowdy admitted was political.
This is horribly naive thinking that is prevalent and pervasive in the Trump base camp. He’s not a Bezos, or a Buffett, or a Gates. He’s a guy that was born rich and has increased his and his family’s wealth through a variety of channels and practices. We’re now finding out (with proof - while most of us suspected it all along) many of his closest business associates are dirty players and that he threatens mafia-style those that aren’t supremely “loyal” to him. That’s a problem, Crazy, and it’s extremely disappointing that an intelligent fellow like you can’t see it. It’s not the porn star stuff, it’s the decades of likely illegal activity and practices that disqualify him from office.
