Loretta Lynch AND Donald Trump BOTH had discussions with Bill Clinton. But only one was meaningful?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Jordan River
No I disagree a 3rd party would be a waste of vote. It depends where your idea of progress is.. do you want the 2nd ammendment changed or not. I dont

The trump attackers are mad

No, the wasted vote would be not voting at all. Vote for Hillary and Trump tells the two party established politicians that they can continue their game in 2020! Vote third party and the message is a middle finger to the established elite.

Trump and Hillary are both narcissistic power hungry individuals who will tell you what they think you want to hear. The third parties don't seem as appealing because they stand on their integrity and are stating what you need to know. No lies, no embellishments, just their ideas of truth.

Part of me believes so much that my vote might be defiled if I cast it. I think it's ok to not vote for that reason. I don't want to give them my vote to defile.

originally posted by: interupt42
Seriously, even worse? Come on, it appears that your bias or hate for trump is going nuclear.

I do have a bias against Trump. But it's based on a personal experience I had with him in 2011. I knew then he was a democrat plant. His candidacy makes perfect sense to me....as a plant.

I am sure you thought I had access to the same knowledge about him as everyone else. But I ran a blog back then and I can tell you that my experience with him carries more towards my opinion than what most people know with regard to their opinion.

You'll have to give me my personal experience. I am not going to change my mind on this. I know what I know.

originally posted by: Willtell
One thing is for sure the meeting of Clinton and the AG is very sinister.

POINT BEING: TRUMP'S AND LYNCH'S DISCUSSIONS WITH BILL CLINTON ARE SINISTER.

Geezus.

Hillary can be cleared of criminal wrongdoing and it's all very clear how significant the Loretta/Bill meeting was, but if she wins, will anyone recall Trump and the Clintons' friendship and reported discussion?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sources told reporters that Loretta Lynch had a discussion with Bill Clinton.

Sources also told reporters that Donald Trump had a discussion with Bill Clinton

I don't see how these two meetings are in any way comparable. Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of the United States. Trump isn't.

originally posted by: interupt42
Sorry but their is no way to spin this or compare the two meetings without looking biased or delusional.

Nice attempt to stifle my discussion, but I do have my own opinion of Trump and he is in a position to reward Hillary FAR AND BEYOND Loretta Lynch and the FBI.

I am disappointed to see you use such pathetic debate tactics, Interupt.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sources told reporters that Loretta Lynch had a discussion with Bill Clinton.

Sources also told reporters that Donald Trump had a discussion with Bill Clinton

I don't see how these two meetings are in any way comparable. Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of the United States. Trump isn't.

No, he's just her sole competition for the office of President of the United States.

Really, Trump is in a position to reward Hillary far greater than Loretta Lynch is. Especially now that the FBI didn't recommend an indictment.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: interupt42
Seriously, even worse? Come on, it appears that your bias or hate for trump is going nuclear.

I do have a bias against Trump. But it's based on a personal experience I had with him in 2011. I knew then he was a democrat plant. His candidacy makes perfect sense to me....as a plant.

I am sure you thought I had access to the same knowledge about him as everyone else. But I ran a blog back then and I can tell you that my experience with him carries more towards my opinion than what most people know with regard to their opinion.

You'll have to give me my personal experience. I am not going to change my mind on this. I know what I know.

Like I said:
No matter what you think of trump or your personal experience with him which I don't doubt for one minute as I despise the man as well , you cant compare those two meetings.

Bill meeting with Lynch is a criminal offence unless you believe he stopped a plane and boarded to talk about grandkids for 30 minutes.

Bill and Trump talking is not remotely close to Bill and Lynch talking.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: interupt42
Seriously, even worse? Come on, it appears that your bias or hate for trump is going nuclear.

I do have a bias against Trump. But it's based on a personal experience I had with him in 2011. I knew then he was a democrat plant. His candidacy makes perfect sense to me....as a plant.

I am sure you thought I had access to the same knowledge about him as everyone else. But I ran a blog back then and I can tell you that my experience with him carries more towards my opinion than what most people know with regard to their opinion.

You'll have to give me my personal experience. I am not going to change my mind on this. I know what I know.

Like I said:
No matter what you think of trump or your personal experience with him which I don't doubt for one minute as I despise the man as well , you cant compare those two meetings.

Bill meeting with Lynch is a criminal offence unless you believe he stopped a plane and boarded to talk about grandkids for 30 minutes.

Bill and Trump talking is not remotely close to Bill and Lynch talking.

No, of course it's not criminal that Bill talked to Trump before he announced his candidacy.

But it is very important, none the less.

If Hillary wins because Trump sabotages his own campaign...that's meaningful to some people, like me. Legal or not.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, he's just her sole competition for the office of President of the United States.

Not at the time they met.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, he's just her sole competition for the office of President of the United States.

Not at the time they met.

Truly, he was. Sixteen competitors and no standout. Trump stood out. And that was very effective.

Since I knew when he started his run that he was a trojan horse, your hindsight argument is not effective. What you watched unfold in real time is not what I watched unfold.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: interupt42
Sorry but their is no way to spin this or compare the two meetings without looking biased or delusional.

Nice attempt to stifle my discussion, but I do have my own opinion of Trump and he is in a position to reward Hillary FAR AND BEYOND Loretta Lynch and the FBI.

I am disappointed to see you use such pathetic debate tactics, Interupt.

Sorry but its not pathetic nor was I attempting to offend you or was it directed at you, but I cant honestly see how anyone can rationally compare the two meeting without being biased at minimum.

Like I said I think Trump is scum and I believe the GOP and the DNC are one in the same , so I wouldn't be surprised if hillary and trump aren't in it together. However, it just doesn't compare to the conflict of interest between Trump and Lynch meeting during an ongoing criminal investigation of his wife.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Bravo, once more.

We don't see eye-to-eye that often, but I do admire your equanimity.

I hope you're aware, however, that you're going to draw some unpleasant comments from some you're not used to seeing them from; remember, you're either fer 'em er agin' em.

Best to you though.

originally posted by: Willtell
One thing is for sure the meeting of Clinton and the AG is very sinister.


The AG had to know that if the FBI didn’t recommend an indictment then the only way Hillary was going to get indicted was through the Justice department.

Clinton obviously knew the FBI would recommend no indictment.

So he knew then that the only way Hillary could get indicted was through the Justice department

So what does he do?

Meets with the AG and creates that scandal


Then the AG says she will only follow the recommendation of the FBI as she has been tainted by the meeting with Clinton

She obviously knew the FBI was going to recommend no indictment.

So now Hillary can NEVER be indicted

The meeting was a smart move by the Clintons...It was clearly a setup to protect Hillary

And because of that, Hillary must not be allowed to win the election.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, of course it's not criminal that Bill talked to Trump before he announced his candidacy. But it is very important, none the less.

Agreed, I just don't agree that being equivalent to a meeting between Lynch and Clinton during a criminal investigation.

If Hillary wins because Trump sabotages his own campaign...that's meaningful to some people, like me. Legal or not.

Earlier on the campaign trail I would have agreed, but with all the scandals, lies, and FBI comments about hillary I would say she is the one sabotaging the campaign.

However, if trump sabotages his campaign and it was pre arranged with bill and hillary as some suspect it still doesn't paint a good picture of hillary as she would have been in it.

However, IMO hillary was selected for this election back in 08 when the deals were made. Trump wont win eitherway.

So what you are suggesting is that a third party vote will be twisted to one of the two parties?

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sources told reporters that Loretta Lynch had a discussion with Bill Clinton.

Sources also told reporters that Donald Trump had a discussion with Bill Clinton

I don't see how these two meetings are in any way comparable. Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of the United States. Trump isn't.

Trump has already sabotaged it.

Bush won, in 2000, by 537 votes in Florida. The Hispanic/Latino population has grown by 50% since then -- in Florida! When he came out swinging on immigration, right away, I knew he was throwing the entire general election. He was polarizing and crass and he hasn't let up since. He has intentionally alienated all kinds of voting blocs that are important to winning a general election.

In hindsight, the Pundits will be able to explain perfectly why he lost.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
So what you are suggesting is that a third party vote will be twisted to one of the two parties?

My opinion: yes. And I have good reason to suspect that our votes are not secure from tampering.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, I know. I drank a diet cranberry and vodka before I hit 'post. '

That's my go to for growing big balls quickly.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Truly, he was. Sixteen competitors and no standout. Trump stood out. And that was very effective.

Since I knew when he started his run that he was a trojan horse, your hindsight argument is not effective. What you watched unfold in real time is not what I watched unfold.

But one is a potential conflict of interest while under federal investigation, while the other is two people out of office speaking together about politics. huge difference.

From your article:

The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

They talked politics.

originally posted by: TheTory

They talked politics.

Har har!

And Bill and Loretta talked about grandkids!