Funny (political, religious) pictures

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
I'm surprised you didn't say since Goldwater.
Click to expand...
Say what you will about the policies Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and even Perot - at the time of their candidacies, they were eminently qualified and respectable (so far as anyone knew, at least in Clinton's case, though he opened the door for the shitshow that was to follow).

Remember when the most disconcerting prospect for the potential presidency we had was Dan Quayle? Because he forgot how to spell potato? Those were the days.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Say what you will about the policies Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and even Perot - at the time of their candidacies, they were eminently qualified and respectable (so far as anyone knew, at least in Clinton's case, though he opened the door for the shitshow that was to follow).

Remember when the most disconcerting prospect for the potential presidency we had was Dan Quayle? Because he forgot how to spell potato? Those were the days.
Click to expand...
GasBandit supports Hillary! You heard it here first!
 
strawman

strawman

Dave said:
Clinton has never been proven ...
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, has Clinton ever been "proven" to have done anything wrong according to your standards of "proven" and do you apply those same standards to Trump?

Because wow, you really are carrying Clinton's water. It sounds to me that you've gone way past "lesser of two evils" to "Clinton is actually a good choice."
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
stienman said:
Out of curiosity, has Clinton ever been "proven" to have done anything wrong according to your standards of "proven" and do you apply those same standards to Trump?

Because wow, you really are carrying Clinton's water. It sounds to me that you've gone way past "lesser of two evils" to "Clinton is actually a good choice."
Click to expand...
She's a much, MUCH better choice than Trump. And I hold them both to the same level. Clinton's pay-to-play was disproven in the email leaks (that showed while people tried to get access they either were denied or had to go through proper channels) while Trump's was "I'm being investigated for felony fraud in two states (Texas and Florida) until I contacted both AGs and donated to their campaigns once they dropped the cases for no reason."

You tell me who is pay-to-play.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Dave said:
She's a much, MUCH better choice than Trump. And I hold them both to the same level. Clinton's pay-to-play was disproven in the email leaks (that showed while people tried to get access they either were denied or had to go through proper channels) while Trump's was "I'm being investigated for felony fraud in two states (Texas and Florida) until I contacted both AGs and donated to their campaigns once they dropped the cases for no reason."

You tell me who is pay-to-play.
Click to expand...
The AGs :p
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Click to expand...
Hmmm. The piece I read fudges the line between "access" and "favors". It does make a distinction between the two, so I guess I need to use different wording.

So how's about this. Clinton's donors were granted access, but nothing shows any favors or policies came from these meetings that weren't from correct channels. Trump's was still worse. Way, way worse.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-emails-explained/story?id=41275551

Judicial Watch goes into a few other allegations that again allege access yet fail to show action based on this access. Yes, access for cash is bad, but not to the level of paying off and stopping corruption investigations.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/

So I'll soften my stance a bit, but still contend that Trump's activities were illegal and far more egregious.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Dave said:
So I'll soften my stance a bit, but still contend that Trump's activities were illegal and far more egregious.
Click to expand...
How deeply have you looked into those activities of Trump?

I mean, you accepted sources that said Trump was engaging in human trafficking when what he was doing was clearly not that. Are your sources on his other activities more legit.


Also: GACK! I hate even seeming to defend Trump.:eek:

And: I'm sorry for contributing to what feels like turning the funny pictures thread into the pile on Dave thread. :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top