3 ms·

>>How many "typical campaigns" pay people, including explicitly mentally ill people, to commit violent acts to give an impression that the other candidate is vi

>>How many "typical campaigns" pay people, including explicitly mentally ill people, to commit violent acts to give an impression that the other candidate is violent, will bring violence if elected, etc.? (Granted, that didn't come to light by emails, but they helped to confirm it.) You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full? >>And speaking of violence, how many modern candidates for President have seriously desired to commit high collateral drone assassinations in 1st World countries of people who aren't exactly making war on the US per se, aren't even under any US indictment? As I say elsewhere, Julian Assange is no doubt resting a bit easier. That was a joke. Hard to take you seriously when you make things up like that. >>Ditto that one party's wiring the nomination for a particular candidate, She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her. >>And that's not even touching on the possibly traitorous criminal conspiracy of the foundations. Which I doubt Obama will pardon wholesale, and then we'll get to see if Trump truly wants to "drain the swamp". AIDS drugs for africa? Yup, treasonous activity. Hint: You don't use a charity foundation as a front for 'traitorous criminal conspiracy.'(that sounds really bad, and clearly not a collection of ominous sounding words you threw together in lieu of a coherent thought)The clintons made their money through the paid speaking circuit. Why the hell would they launder money/favors through their foundation? (Hint: they didn't)

hga 10y ago
You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full? I mean the "heavily edited video" that, just, somehow, prompted the firing of the two idiots who said too much. I didn't make up "Can't we just drone this guy", try looking at the results of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+guy https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+g... and see that the people she asked this of realized she wasn't joking. And that's not the sort of thing people should be joking about. She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her. If no wiring was needed, why did they do it anyway? Is the reason no one else challenged her the very fact that they knew about the wiring? There's absolutely no way this is pardonable unless you throw all all the efforts of the Progressives to end the era of "smoke filled rooms".

hga 10y ago

You mean the heavily edited video that the group who did the so called 'expose' refused to release in full? I mean the "heavily edited video" that, just, somehow, prompted the firing of the two idiots who said too much. I didn't make up "Can't we just drone this guy", try looking at the results of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+guy https://www.google.com/search?q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+g... and see that the people she asked this of realized she wasn't joking. And that's not the sort of thing people should be joking about. She won overwhelmingly, no 'wiring' required. There was a reason no one else challenged her. If no wiring was needed, why did they do it anyway? Is the reason no one else challenged her the very fact that they knew about the wiring? There's absolutely no way this is pardonable unless you throw all all the efforts of the Progressives to end the era of "smoke filled rooms".