Bannon did demolish what was once a very good conservative news source, Brietbart. He more or less converted it into a de facto super pac for Trump. And it seems his work (ass kissing) paid off for him. Clinton being slimy and Bannon being slimy are certainly not mutually exclusive. Lol...
Do you honestly believe he is anything other then that? He has pushed their reporting to new lows in the field. I know you are but what am I is hardly a serious response.
I agree. He's horrible and slimy. Fits right in with the trump campaign. But, how many deaths around the world does he have a hand in? How many classified emails has he mishandled? How much uranium has he sold to Russia? How many rapes has he helped cover up? Etc etc..
Much of that is the result of 30+ years of rumors, speculations and out of context sensationalism. I also believe you will find long lists of his shadiness throughout this thread and others. How many folks has he put in financial straits through his fraudulent schemes? How many businesses has he refused to pay his due, how many of those had to shutter their doors? How many of his own workers were stolen from by his not paying them? How much money has he taken from criminal elements, many with a direct tie to Putin? How much does he still owe foreign entities? How many Dr notes will he forge? And on and on.
But Trump is LITERALLY Hitler!!! "The core principal of freedom is the only notion to obey" - Dimmu Borgir
Yeah he's only being indited in federal court for racketeering right now, while Manfort and Carter Page deal with allegations of Russian ties. Much better. To mishandle email you have to actual know what email is and how to turn a computer on, so Trump is safe there. Maybe he can, "call Bill Gates," to explain how that works, and ask him to shut the internet off while he's at it. As to rapes, well we'd have to ask Jeffery Epstein about that wouldn't we? Seriously though, Trump has never been in a position to have blood on his hands as he has no political service to speak of. But his positions in times of crisis have time and time again been in line with exactly how our country acted in the middle east and beyond. It's only now in 2016 that he's revising these positions (and lying that he ever had them)
Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems that you are defending a sociopath because another sociopath that you like less is in the argument. Or am I really wrong and you actually support Hillary and think that is the best "choice"? "The core principal of freedom is the only notion to obey" - Dimmu Borgir
I'm saying there's not much difference between them really. Voting for Trump because you believe Clinton is slimy/dishonest/crooked/dangerous etc...is like saying, "man Big Macs are terrible! I can't wait to switch it up to a quality burger like the Whopper! Things will be much better then!" In the end, my state is deeply blue. It always votes democrat in presidential elections. My vote actually means nothing, but I do vote. Last cycle I voted Johnson for shits and giggles. Maybe I'll do the same again. It's of no consequence really. My participation in these discussions is purely for amusement and to stretch my mind a bit. In the end I realize I will likely change no one's opinions, and I'm fine with that.
i don't know.. how about you answer the questions you asked? and how many of those things were directly responsible for thousands of deaths? how many of those things were done during public service on the taxpayers dime? how many of these things compromised national security? how many of those things were done through the state department? 30 years of rumors? It's much more that rumor dude. have you read any of these emails that have been coming out? if not, turn from CNN to something else.. even NBC and ABC are talking about this. Greenie.. your party loyalty is commendable, but very dangerous and scary. very scary.. It's going to be harder and harder for you to defend as more evidence comes out.
Obviously Trump couldn't do those things under those conditions since he hasn't even been an elected dog catcher yet. He doesn't stand to well in the character pool though does he? Then again, many of those accusations (about Hillary) are distorted and put in a false light, much like the foundation stuff. AP's Bombshell Clinton Foundation Report Comes Under Scrutiny The AP got called out for a misleading (and widely shared) tweet accompanying the report that made it appear that half of all Clinton’s meetings ― not just those with private officials ― had taken place with foundation donors. Vox’s Matthew Yglesiaschallenged the broader thrust of the AP’s story even further, arguing that the AP framed its findings as more scandalous than they warranted. Though Yglesias acknowledged that potential links between Clinton’s State Department and the candidate deserved scrutiny, he argued that donors who apparently received preferential access actually deserved it and were pushing unobjectionable, noble causes. The Clinton campaign quickly circulated the Vox article, in addition to noting that some of the relationships that the AP highlighted ― including one with Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel Prize-winning Bangladeshi economist ― existed before Clinton’s tenure at state. Nice job of dodging his wrongfulness.
I already told you that I think trump is a piece of shit not worthy to hold office.. what more do I need to say? I know people in NYC who were personally fucked over by Trump. Unfortunately when businesses fail, people get fucked. Not saying that it's right, but it's fact. Bankruptcy laws are there for a reason.. But to compare him with the Clinton's is biased and a little psychotic even. I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy from the Clinton fans. It's nauseating, and dangerous. These Clinton's are the worst of the worst, they care for no one but themselves and their donors... and the little people keep defending them and holding up signs cheering them on. Just the Haiti situation alone.. how can anyone defend that? (waits patiently for HuffPo or WaPo article defending it) Greenie.. i'd bet that even if all the proof in the world came out, and they dragged her out in cuffs. you'd still find a way to defend her or blame someone else for it.
Wow, wait, are you talking about the billions of dollars of relief funds and aid that they brought there? Or. Are you talking about her help in getting the third man in the election run offs returned. Likely the later. Interesting tale there. The citizens thought there was fraud and that the election was rigged. She helped in getting him returned and the voters overwhelming voted him in. After taking office he did a lot of favors for old criminal buddies. Because she helped the people get what they wanted a lot of blame was projected onto her. It didn't help that her chief of staff had sent a tongue in cheek email to the ambassadors there. It likely also didn't help that her brother (separate entity, with no help from her) had a lot of investments there. Kind of funny how some haters of hers can twist the circumstances around, tell a partial story or present things in a manner to arise suspicions. What do you use for sources like these?
NY Times and Real Clear Politics.. probably more if i use something other than google. How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich Off Poor Haitians | RealClearPolitics http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html
definitely a slip of the tongue.. even though they'll raise the payroll tax, which is a direct tax on the middle class. But she obviously did not mean to say that.
Trump scares me, terribly. That was before she got #3 back in. Don't be doing an out of context maneuver my friend. It was what the citizens desired. Sometimes you need to be careful of what you wish for. How Ironic.