One operating within the law... Huge difference, and he isnt talking of assassinating a political enemy.
I know right. If it was Trump instead of Obama, he probably would've called for the crowd to attack the old guy while shouting "Get 'em out! Get 'em out of here!!!". Maybe even offer to pay the bail of those who attacked the protestor
Yea doesnt Obama have a job to do? Are we paying him to campaign for Hillary? That guy is such a puppet, i dont know if i disdain or pity him.
Big difference in the medium and the tone each used too. He just wants to throw a political opponent in jail and incite his followers to feel the same. Hers was not publically stated. Changing laws to align with countries that think that way is not a good thing.
That is following the talking point. He is doing a job by adding insurance that his previous hard work and programs have a chance to grow vs being casually destroyed. etc. etc.
Do you have any sources that this was actually said. I've only seen anonymous sources claiming she said it on right wing blogs known to run with bullshit.
Yea sticking to the law is horrible, but since she said it privately its all flowers and lollipops. Changing what laws? You break the law and avoid prosecution? Didnt he say he would appoint a special prosecuter, he didnt say he would NDAA throw her in the slammer without a trial.
Doing a job he wasnt hired and paid to do and subverting the free elections. If his 'hard work and programs' werent shit maybe he wouldnt have to worry about it. Yea TRUST ME you will be able to keep your doctor and your current insurance. IT IS AND ISNT A TAX, depending on who is asking and why.
This is what scares me about this election. We have people praising the breach of privacy to expose government corruption, which to some degree is good, but that is a dangerous precedent IMO.
Another problem is that no body is perfect. We could have a potentially fantastic candidate (say like JFK) but due to his vice for women, he would get flamed into oblivion now-a-days. I might have to run myself since i have nothing in my closet, they'd go insane trying to dig up dirt that doesnt exist. Aside from my public opinions expressed on here
Well if we're going based on anonymous sources let's talk about the fact that Trump said we should use nuclear weapons and asking why we don't use them in a meeting with military generals according to anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are bullshit a lot of the times with no supplemental evidence. There are plenty of confirmed well reported terrible things about Clinton, you don't have to spread unsubstantiated shit.
Sometimes a little reason goes a long way. This isnt proof, just correlations. Huge trail of death following the Clintons (statistically HAS to be significant) Subsequent sabotage of Assange's internet Clinton didnt deny it just "doesnt remember" like every other time she is on the hot seat.
THE CLINTON SCANDALS: A guide to the archive of the Progressive Review KEYS: Arkansas, drugs, Whitewater
Tit for tat. "Loves revenge" is subjective. One destroys evidence and has a tight grip on the MSM and establishment, and the other wants to change libel laws and the first amendment. One threatens nuclear weapons, the other gets kickbacks from their sales, gets $ selling arms to repressive governments and supports more war, and wonders why she can't drone bomb someone revealing her corruption. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum