The 'Foundation' Story You Won't Find on Fox

[abelcainsbrother]

Rick. DB has convinced me. Because Trump mishandled $250K...

Ah... so Hillary's involvement in the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and dishonest.

But when Trump illegally uses funds in his 'charitable' Foundation for personal business purposes... multiple times... it is only 'mishandling'.

Got it!

It still pales in comparison compared to the Clinton's corruption,even if it is true but you NeverTrumper's have ruined your credibility actually hoping Hillary wins and siding with the Republican establishment that is corrupt too. It is not just the liberals.I thought Ted Cruz was anti sqq establishment like Trump? Yet after he lost he sided up with the establishment proving it true that he was groomed in the Bush administration and Bush was not conservative. All he did is do what he ran on to do but that does not make him conservative.Government spending still went up.

[RickD]

For the sake of the argument, let's say you are correct, and Trump is more dishonest, corrupt, and immoral than Hillary.

Let's assume both candidates will try to implement what they say they will. Whose policies if implemented, will be more harmful to the country.

Pretty much all of us except maybe ACB, won't vote for Trump because he's a bastion of morality.

[abelcainsbrother]

Rick. DB has convinced me. Because Trump mishandled $250K...

Ah... so Hillary's involvement in the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and dishonest.

But when Trump illegally uses funds in his 'charitable' Foundation for personal business purposes... multiple times... it is only 'mishandling'.

Got it!

It still pales in comparison compared to the Clinton's corruption,even if it is true but you NeverTrumper's have ruined your credibility actually hoping Hillary wins and siding with the Republican establishment that is corrupt too. It is not just the liberals.I thought Ted Cruz was anti sqq establishment like Trump? Yet after he lost he sided up with the establishment proving it true that he was groomed in the Bush administration and Bush was not conservative. I know for me it proved what Roger Stone said about Ted Cruz in the Bush admoinistration and Roger Stone was there too. Roger Stone helped Bush win the recount in Florida but then he reakized the corruption in the Bush family and wrote a book about it. He wrote a book about Bush family corruption and a book about Clinton corruption,so he is not biased.All Bush did is do what he ran on to do but that does not make him conservative.Government spending still went up.

[RickD]

Wow ACB,

You quoted yourself.

[Jac3510]

Then in your personal opinion, DB, you've elevated your opinion on the man over the facts regarding the SCOTUS and the massive impact that will have on the country. So when Heller is overturned, you'll fully accept the responsibility and say it was totally worth it so that you didn't have to tolerate Trump in the White House. I certainly trust you to be that honest.

And if you can't, DB, get over your own pride, then at least think about my children, to say nothing of the millions of unborn kids who will be slaughtered in the womb. I absolutely cannot believe that you would be willing to sacrifice their future. But hey, at least you won't have to vote for a guy that spent $250,000 on the wrong things. Millions of dead children understand your vote.

On another matter entirely, don't make me laugh by ever suggesting you are a conservative again. You aren't. Conservatism is marked by an understanding of reality. You're a pagan [ethically, as if I need to make such a silly and obvious distinction], sacrificing children--literal children--on the altar of your ideology. But hey, so long as you don't have to compromise your precious ideology.

[abelcainsbrother]

Rick. DB has convinced me. Because Trump mishandled $250K...

Ah... so Hillary's involvement in the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and dishonest.

But when Trump illegally uses funds in his 'charitable' Foundation for personal business purposes... multiple times... it is only 'mishandling'.

Got it!

It still pales in comparison compared to the Clinton's corruption,even if it is true but you NeverTrumper's have ruined your credibility actually hoping Hillary wins and siding with the Republican establishment that is corrupt too. It is not just the liberals.I thought Ted Cruz was anti sqq establishment like Trump? Yet after he lost he sided up with the establishment proving it true that he was groomed in the Bush administration and Bush was not conservative. I know for me it proved what Roger Stone said about Ted Cruz in the Bush admoinistration and Roger Stone was there too. Both Roger Stone and Ted Cruz helped Bush win the recount in Florida but then he realized the corruption in the Bush family and wrote a book about it. He wrote a book about Bush family corruption and a book about Clinton corruption,so he is not biased.All Bush did is do what he ran on to do but that does not make him conservative.Government spending still went up.

[edwardmurphy]

A few thoughts -

1) We still have 3 branches of government and every nominee has to get through the Senate. A moderate might get the nod, but the further a candidate moves from the center the lower his odds will become.

2) What makes you think Trump would pick conservative judges? He's consistently inconsistent, reliably impulsive, and seems to have no core principles. I doubt he knows what he'd do if he won (apart from shamelessly using the Presidency to promote his brand and pad his wallet). Incidentally, have you heard this rumor...?

3) There's no guarantee that any judge is going to vote the way that the nominating President anticipates. They're in for life. Good luck pressuring them.

4) Clinton might not agree with you guys about some social issues (that the majority of Americans don't agree with you about either), but she's pretty cozy with Wall Street and the big banks. The idea that she's some kind of communist is laughable.

Anyway, I think that the argument that voting for anyone other than Trump will guarantee a liberal Supreme Court for decades is a bit shaky. There are too many variables.

[abelcainsbrother]

A few thoughts -

1) We still have 3 branches of government and every nominee has to get through the Senate. A moderate might get the nod, but the further a candidate moves from the center the lower his odds will become.

2) What makes you think Trump would pick conservative judges? He's consistently inconsistent, reliably impulsive, and seems to have no core principles. I doubt he knows what he'd do if he won (apart from shamelessly using the Presidency to promote his brand and pad his wallet). Incidentally, have you heard this rumor...?

3) There's no guarantee that any judge is going to vote the way that the nominating President anticipates. They're in for life. Good luck pressuring them.

4) Clinton might not agree with you guys about some social issues (that the majority of Americans don't agree with you about either), but she's pretty cozy with Wall Street and the big banks. The idea that she's some kind of communist is laughable.

Anyway, I think that the argument that voting for anyone other than Trump will guarantee a liberal Supreme Court for decades is a bit shaky. There are too many variables.

We are tired of the same status-quo politics.We already know what politicians will do and it is not good for America no matter what party has power. We want to give a non-politician a chance. Sure he could be lying and faking us out like politicians have,but then he just might do what he ran on and it will not hurt America,it will massively help America if he does what he's running on.

As far as the Supreme Court picks and nominees? We know how it usually goes,but I see Trump fighting politically for the things he ran on to do and his Ego won't allow him to lose politically.

[Jac3510]

A few thoughts -

1) We still have 3 branches of government and every nominee has to get through the Senate. A moderate might get the nod, but the further a candidate moves from the center the lower his odds will become.

Yes, because Republicans have a solid history of not caving on pretty much any and every issue. Kagan, Sotomayor . . . right.

2) What makes you think Trump would pick conservative judges? He's consistently inconsistent, reliably impulsive, and seems to have no core principles. I doubt he knows what he'd do if he won (apart from shamelessly using the Presidency to promote his brand and pad his wallet). Incidentally, have you heard this rumor...?

You've always spouted the leftist talking points on Trump. I'm no Trump fan, but the idiocy that comes out of the left about him really is that: idiocy.

3) There's no guarantee that any judge is going to vote the way that the nominating President anticipates. They're in for life. Good luck pressuring them.

Ahah, so I'm sure you defended Alito's nomination, and you'll defend the nomination of someone like William Pryor or Diane Sykes.

4) Clinton might not agree with you guys about some social issues (that the majority of Americans don't agree with you about either), but she's pretty cozy with Wall Street and the big banks. The idea that she's some kind of communist is laughable.

There are idiots on the right who think that Clinton is a socialist/communist just like there are idiots on the left who think that Trump will start a nuclear war. And if you think that her being cozy with Wall Street and big banks is a good thing, then you've fundamentally misunderstood Trump supporters. The people on the right uncomfortable with Trump, like the Bushes, are the ones who WANT someone who is cozy with the banks. So congratz, eddy, you and the Bushes have the same vision for this country. Just another reason that Bush (both of them) were terrible POTUS'.

Anyway, I think that the argument that voting for anyone other than Trump will guarantee a liberal Supreme Court for decades is a bit shaky. There are too many variables.

The only people who agree with you are dishonest, ignorant, or simply incapable of thinking clearly.

[abelcainsbrother]

For the sake of the argument, let's say you are correct, and Trump is more dishonest, corrupt, and immoral than Hillary.

Let's assume both candidates will try to implement what they say they will. Whose policies if implemented, will be more harmful to the country.

Pretty much all of us except maybe ACB, won't vote for Trump because he's a bastion of morality.

I do not believe Trump is a bastion of marality.All I've ever did was point out that nothing Trump has said against anybody in this campaign comes close to the mean-spirited hateful thinks liberals have said about conservatives. Yet it is like amnesia has set in about how liberals call names,smear and slander political foes on the right ruining them politically. They were trying to do it to Trump even but he hit back and is winning because he did.Also that Trump has a right to hit back politically when he is attacked first. This does not mean he is a bastion of morality.Conservatives know all about liberal tactics.

[DBowling]

For the sake of the argument, let's say you are correct, and Trump is more dishonest, corrupt, and immoral than Hillary.

Let's assume both candidates will try to implement what they say they will. Whose policies if implemented, will be more harmful to the country.

That's the real problem here. Both candidates are fundamentally dishonest and corrupt. And dishonesty and corruption in the Oval Office cannot help but damage the nation... they are like a cancer to the soul of our nation. So the answer is both Trump and Clinton have the potential to inflict tremendous damage upon our country.

That is why as a conservative, I'm choosing to vote for a principled conservative, Evan McMullin... not some liberal masquerading as a conservative.

Who actually makes it to the White House (or the Supreme Court for that matter) isn't my choice anyway. The person in control of that is God and God alone.

I may not be able to decide who becomes the next President, but I can choose to let my vote reflect my political and moral values.
And neither Clinton nor Trump reflect either my political or moral values.

Which is why I'm choosing to vote for a person who does actually come a lot closer to reflecting my political and moral values.

My .02

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:

Who actually makes it to the White House (or the Supreme Court for that matter) isn't my choice anyway. The person in control of that is God and God alone.

Then why vote at all?

[abelcainsbrother]

Here ya go Ed. This is for everybody that is'nt sure if we can trust Trump. This is an interview Trump gave on the Savage Nation in 2011 years before he actually is running in 2016. And he pretty much talks about the same things he is now running on to fix.Why would we not trust him if he's been talking about this stuff for so long?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9IzdSNivr0

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:

Who actually makes it to the White House (or the Supreme Court for that matter) isn't my choice anyway. The person in control of that is God and God alone.

Then why vote at all?

Because as a citizen of the United States I have the right and privilege to vote.
and I can exercise the opportunity to express my political and moral values through my vote.

And as we go 'down ballot' my vote will have more impact.
And I do plan on voting for conservatives and conservative issues through the whole ballot.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:

Who actually makes it to the White House (or the Supreme Court for that matter) isn't my choice anyway. The person in control of that is God and God alone.

Then why vote at all?

Because as a citizen of the United States I have the right and privilege to vote.
and I can exercise the opportunity to express my political and moral values through my vote.

And as we go 'down ballot' my vote will have more impact.
And I do plan on voting for conservatives and conservative issues through the whole ballot.

Mr. Bowling,

Be a good boy. Listen to the wisdom of your parents. Vote for Trump. Make your parents proud of you! Make America great again!