3 more cops assassinated, Obama says we eed to focus on words that unite

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, give it up. You won't admit she lied, and no one believes that she made an honest mistake.Is it a wonder people ignore you and let you ask the same stupid question time after time after time. Go back and look at post 228. I said "she acknowledged her lie".
How do you guys say these things with a straight face, exactly?

And also just like I posted at 730 this morning about the "serial liar" statement. Your reading comprehension stinks - your constantly mis-stating what people say. Take your time and read things slowly.

Got any lies she said from 1995? - Petty

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But it works. As long as one has no reservations with being devoid of morals, then embracing the liberal ideology is quite effective as a political strategy. Here in my home state of CT, we have a very wealthy and educated citizenry. Yet everything is a mess, we are on the brink of insolvency, and we rank near the bottom of almost everything that can be measured, and people who work cannot flee the state fast enough. Yet the liberals get 99.98% of the vote every November. It's un-explainable.

There at the Democrat convention, you have the very people who were actively working against Bernie Sanders, telling the crowd to show them respect, and saying that the story isn't what was in the emails, but rather, who brought them to light.

The Democratic party of inclusion apparently didn't want to include the other Democrat in the race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And also just like I posted at 730 this morning about the "serial liar" statement. Your reading comprehension stinks - your constantly mis-stating what people say. Take your time and read things slowly.

Got any lies she said from 1995? - Petty

"who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can".

That's an exact quote of yours. Am I mis-stating it? Am I comprehending it incorrectly? I don't think so.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

The Democratic party of inclusion apparently didn't want to include the other Democrat in the race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which, of course, is the only reason they have the superdelegates. So that the people who run the DNC, and not the citizenry they claim to serve, can decide who gets the nomination. How democratic.

I will admit, since my party shot ourselves in the foot with our nominee, it would be tempting to wish that the party heads would step in and override the folks and pick someone with a better chance of winning. But the man won fair and square. Somehow.

[buckman]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1105091

I will admit, since my party shot ourselves in the foot with our nominee, it would be tempting to wish that the party heads would step in and override the folks and pick someone with a better chance of winning. But the man won fair and square. Somehow.[/QUOTE]

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.

We are broken, and we need some fixin'.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.

Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

Trump's antics allowed him to distinguish himself from the other 85 Republicans running, that's for sure. And in this brain-dead culture, that kind of bombastic behavior will win you some fans who will ignore a more mild mannered candidate. We'll see what effect it has in the general. Unchartered waters here. I don't remember a race where I found both candidates to be morally gross.

Who did McCain ever eviscerate?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can".

That's an exact quote of yours. Am I mis-stating it? Am I comprehending it incorrectly? I don't think so.

Yes, you are absolutely misstating it bc your are only quoting 1/2 of a statement (isn't that the type of sleazy stuff Breitbart does?) in an attempt to change the meaning and by doing that your implying I never said she hasn't lied. I started the statement by saying that "I don't think she is a serial liar". Anyone with any intellecticual honesty (or with any basic reading comprehension) would understand that didn't imply that I didn't think she never lied.

How petty is it of you to continue to discuss things that she said in 1995?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you pls. post that link I asked about earlier.

Thanks

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Can you pls. post that link I asked about earlier.

Thanks

It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, you are absolutely misstating it bc your are only quoting 1/2 of a statement (isn't that the type of sleazy stuff Breitbart does?) in an attempt to change the meaning and by doing that your implying I never said she hasn't lied. I started the statement by saying that "I don't think she is a serial liar". Anyone with any intellecticual honesty (or with any basic reading comprehension) would understand that didn't imply that I didn't think she never lied.

How petty is it of you to continue to discuss things that she said in 1995?

Half the statement? I wish I knew how to take a screen shot and post it, because it was your whole statement.

In your post which I put here, you denied she lied. You called it mis-remembering or something, and said it wasn't deliberate on her part, but rather due to being tired. Poor little lamb, didn't get her 10 hours of sleep.

"I never said she hasn't lied"

OK, let's stop playing semantic bullsh*t games, and end this right now. Did she lie about the sniper thing, yes or no?

"discuss things that she said in 1995"

OK, there's a statute of limitations? Well, if you want more current...she lied when she said they were broke when they left the White House. She lied when she said she turned over all of her work emails (there were 3,000 the FBI had to recover on their own), and she lied when she said she didn't send any emails that were flagged as classified (there were 3).

Current enough?

Brian Williams told a very similar lie, and it was determined that the lie precluded him from reading the news off a teleprompter, which a monkey can do. So why doesn't that same lie, preclude her from being POTUS? Surely being POTUS requires a higher degree of trust than being a TV news reporter? I have asked dozens of liberals that question, and the only response I get back is a blank stare.

You denied that her tale was a lie. Then you excused it by buying her story that she was tired. Even if that's true (which it's not), here's another question that no liberal can answer...if being tired means she can't distinguish between a smiling toddler and an enemy sniper shooting at her, doesn't THAT mean she's not fit to be commander-in-chief? What if she has a sleepless night, and a girl scout tries to give her a flower, and she yells at her secret service agent "SHE'S AN ENEMY SNIPER TRYING TO KILL ME! SHOOT HER!"

If lack of sleep makes her that deranged, you want her to have the nuclear launch codes? Doesn't the job of POTUS carry the risk that she might have to make critical decisions while tired?

You have fun trying to answer that. Again, I've asked that to dozens of liberals. The most cogent response I've gotten, is "a-der-der."

[PaulS]

Now, can you concede that Hilary is a serial liar who denigrated the female victims of her husband's predation? Yes or no? I don't think she is a serial liar. Has she been wrong (who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can.

Post 222

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342

Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Case Summary



This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342

Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Case Summary



This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

What you just posted proved he wasn't found guilty....it states that he settled.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342

Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Case Summary



This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

Just the kind of freedom that Democrats want for everyone. You may own it, but the government has the right to control what you do with your property and who is to use it.
I wonder if I will live long enough to see this in the charter fishing business. I can see it now, you open the envelope and read....your captains license is being suspended because you don't take the proper ratio of non-Caucasian customers and that is race discrimination.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342

Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Case Summary



This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

Didn't you call me petty for bringing up Hilary's ethical lapses from 1995? But what Trump did in the 1970s is more relevant? Please explain, I am confused...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

What you just posted proved he wasn't found guilty....it states that he settled.

Yes it does say he settled. It says nothing about the case being dismissed.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Didn't you call me petty for bringing up Hilary's ethical lapses from 1995? But what Trump did in the 1970s is more relevant? Please explain, I am confused...

I only brought it up to show how petty it is to look back at things that didn't happen in the recent past. Petty isn't it?

Should we discuss what Rev. Wright said in 2004 or should we continue to discuss what Hillary said in 1995 since you must have brought up both issues hundreds of times since you signed on to the board.

Does that clear up the confusion or do you need me to explain it a little differently?

[ecduzitgood]

Hillary Trumps truth!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I only brought it up to show how petty it is to look back at things that didn't happen in the recent past. Petty isn't it?

Should we discuss what Rev. Wright said in 2004 or should we continue to discuss what Hillary said in 1995 since you must have brought up both issues hundreds of times since you signed on to the board.

Does that clear up the confusion or do you need me to explain it a little differently?

OK, so you weren't really trying to say anything about Trump.

Now, to repeat my earlier question. You believe that Hilary "was wrong" about coming under sniper fire, and it only happened because she was tired.

Aren't you concerned that if elected POTUS, she might become similarly "wrong" if she gets woken up to deal with a crisis? What if she has a sleepless night, and she confuses a girl scout visiting the White House with a sniper, and she orders the secret service to shoot the girl scout?

I guess it was a one-time thing? She only gets delusional from exhaustion once, and then it's out of her system?

I await your answer...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so you weren't really trying to say anything about Trump.No, I actually do think he is a racist. I used that specific example bc I think your a petty person to focus on things from 1995 and 2004 and I knew that was very old.

Now, to repeat my earlier question. You believe that Hilary "was wrong" about coming under sniper fire, and it only happened because she was tired.

Aren't you concerned that if elected POTUS, she might become similarly "wrong" if she gets woken up to deal with a crisis? What if she has a sleepless night, and she confuses a girl scout visiting the White House with a sniper, and she orders the secret service to shoot the girl scout?

I guess it was a one-time thing? She only gets delusional from exhaustion once, and then it's out of her system?

I await your answer...

Back to your reading comprehension issue - go see post 228.

[ecduzitgood]

The sniper reception is part of this video
https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes it does say he settled. It says nothing about the case being dismissed.

weren't you responding to this comment?

Originally Posted by buckman

It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Back to your reading comprehension issue - go see post 228.

I don't see in post 228 where you addressed why we needn't be concerned with Hilary's penchant (according to you) for, when tired, of not being able to tell the difference between a warm reception and an assassination attempt. I see no reference to that in post 228, none whatsoever.

Can you clarify? Rather than just pointing to another post, if you have addressed this, just paste your response to you next post.

.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

weren't you responding to this comment?

He did ask me to show him where it was dismissed . Democrats are real sticklers when it comes to the law . Hillary broke the law but was not charged with a crime so she is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt . Trump , back in 1973 , was charged with discrimination , was never convicted of anything, but he is guilty as charged .
It really helps to throw the racism thing in wherever you can. That really is the only way to unite the country. Right Paul ?
It really helps if you dismiss logic and reality and you will be able to understand Paul's point of view .
Maybe Paul can tell is what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Maybe Paul can tell us what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is awesome

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

The case was dismissed .
Hillary was a big supporter of Senator Byrd . An actual member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Does it bother you the DNC called an operation to recruit Hispanics , Operation Taco Bowl ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

weren't you responding to this comment?

Nope, he claimed it was dismissed (then later changed that to not guilty when I did a little more research an saw it was not dismissed - not guilty is vastly different than dismissed.

Either way, I wasn't sure and asked a few times to post a link. I guess now we know now why he didn't post a link.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

He did ask me to show him where it was dismissed . Democrats are real sticklers when it comes to the law . Hillary broke the law but was not charged with a crime so she is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt . Trump , back in 1973 , was charged with discrimination , was never convicted of anything, but he is guilty as charged .
It really helps to throw the racism thing in wherever you can. That really is the only way to unite the country. Right Paul ? Where I have done that? How many people have I called racist? - Pls. post some links. I'll call you out again - just like I called you on the not guilty statement. You had to change your story from dismissed to not guilty bc I caught you in a lie and you knew it. I was gonna let you go on that and not bring it but....... As I said I do think he is a racist,a bigot and a bully though.
It really helps if you dismiss logic and reality and you will be able to understand Paul's point of view . If you don't think Trump has problems with race your dismissing logic and reality. I guess all those statements about Hispanics, Mexican's, re-tweets from racist websites are all made up.
Maybe Paul can tell is what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nm

[ecduzitgood]

Still waiting for you to post all the racist web site re-tweets.
In the meantime

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t...ton-is-scared/Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device