Trump easily wins 2nd debate MSM trying to spin it against him.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: kruphix

Guess what a special prosecutor does, then see if that applies to you or Rosie O'Donnel.

You can defend the actions of a would be Tyrant, you are free to do so.

Thankfully, the majority of Americans disagree with you.

No, they don't. But have fun when Madam President goes to war with Russia.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, that's what I remember.

And then he said, "you'll be in jail."

President, judge, jury. Awesome.

Make America great. Or, third world.

He did also mention Bill on a plane with Loretta.

President, Judge, and jury,
Making American more corrupt.

Clinton thought that was awesome.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
So I get that the big thing before this debate was the hot mic on what Trump said.

I wonder how many decrying what he said bought and enjoyed 50 Shades of Grey.

Sigh.
There is a difference between erotic fiction novels and a candidate for president saying he could do anything he wants and the whole tic tacs grab em by the () thing.

Locker room talk...by a sixty year old man...by that age, you should know better than to make those kind of comments if not in a locker room.

He wasn't a candidate when he said that, and locker room talk is usually fiction. So I'd say it's a fair comparison.

Exactly! That's why I disagree with the news media labeling Donald Trump's 2005 remarks as a "SCANDAL". When I told Larry in 2005 that I would love to get a piece of Shelly's azz, was that a Scandal?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

President, judge and jury.
Awesome.

Who else?

Trump supporters won't get why this is a bad thing. They have been begging Trump to bring up this attack forever. They have all already decided Hillary is guilty and want her in jail. A common chant at his rallies is "Lock her up!".


Everyone else, who are rational thinkers, see what a scary concept this is that Trump is bringing up. Like you said, Who else? People that have screwed him in business deals? Rosie O'donnell? How about comedians that make fun of his little hands?

Trump has a history of being vindictive and petty. This wasn't a joke at all on Trump's part...this is really what he thinks he will have the power to do as President.

But like I said, Trump supporters won't get it.

You have already been shown how Trump said he would appoint a a prosecutor. You ignore the facts that show the FBI investigation was a farce. But ok.

Oh, and what are your feelings on Hillary blaming everything on the Russians, and being the judge on that. What is her proof? Yet you have no problem with her single handedly driving us to war with Russia.

Dude , WTF she is like Abe Lincoln and has been under sniper fire.

Heck even the ATS code couldnt process my post above and glitched with a dbl post error.

a reply to: kruphix

Well, you're wrong and your fear is irrational. Special prosecutors are for investigating government official misconduct.

Trump specifically stated that if any citizen did even one fifth of the mishandling of classified material she did, they would be in jail.

Now are the left wing sore losers going to say ooh straight to jail no trial or anything blah blah hitler raaaaage?

It is a fact that people are jailed for mishandling classified material, after trials and convictions. She should be there, and everyone who is not partisan biased knows this.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You were both wrong, but you were egregiously wrong because I didn't see Les double down on it like you did.

Sorry, please clarify.

No. Do your own leg work you have a back button on your browser, use it and review what everyone else will see.

Trump and Pence sitting in a tree K I S S I N.....oops well maybe not!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Please provide a citation for authority for the President to direct the actions of the AG.

Again look at her answer on the two faced question. Did she say "Of course I mean what I am saying in public" or anything like that? No she doubled down by saying basically Lincoln had to lie to get his agenda passed and that was good.

So in other words, she is admitting she has to lie in public to get her agenda passed, because it is for the greater good.

So when we see people in her campaign telling people behind closed doors saying "She is just saying she won't support the TPP now, but she will when elected"or when we see her in public saying free college but in private saying that this is an unrealistic dream, we know she is lying.

Honest question, do any Hillary supporters here have any justification for this whatsoever? And follow up, if she is admitting she lies to get things passed, why do you trust any of her positions considering the huge amount of money corrupt bankers and such have given her?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

President, judge and jury.
Awesome.

Who else?

Trump will remove the Clinton operatives. That have made them exempt from justice for their crimes. You might want to lick the boots of the Clinton's forever but we're getting off this bumpy ride.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Trump will remove the Clinton operatives.

A purge? Like Stalin?
Or legally?

a reply to: Phage

Can Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton?

VERDICT: TRUE

Trump said "If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception."

The US Attorney General does have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, according to Stephen Vladeck, a CNN legal contributor and law professor with the University of Texas School of Law. Such action can be taken when the Attorney General determines that a criminal investigation is warranted and that an investigation by the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest or "other extraordinary circumstance" and that "under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel."

CNN

I'm on mobile, so refuse to fact-check the fact-checkers at the moment.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Please provide a citation for authority for the President to direct the actions of the AG.

You mean like where Obama won't let his AG do anything but hand out immunities to all the coconspirators?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

I think she went easy on him because she was afraid that if he quit somebody that might win could be put on the GOP ticket.

That's an interesting take.

And probably true.

a reply to: Grambler
Do you think Trump, when negotiating a real estate deal, tells the same thing to all parties involved?

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
I wouldnt say he won ''easily'' it was a draw, but that in my mind is better for Trump that Clinton.

With the release of the audio tape and his performance in the first debate, he could have easily bombed.

he landed a lot of heavy hits on her with the emails, bhengazi, state dept..

i think she came out worse tonight.

Hillary, phifffft, she lied about being SoS when obama drew the red line.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You mean like where Obama won't let his AG do anything but hand out immunities to all the coconspirators?

No. I mean where Trump says he will instruct his AG to do something.

Trump easily wins 2nd debate MSM trying to spin it against him.

Question: Do Americans have the faculties of perception and discernment? Being a Brit, I hope that they do.

Now bear in mind two things:

a) I can't stand Hilary Clinton

b) I can't stand Donald Trump

Are these two candidates really the best that a country of 350 million people can offer up to the highest office in the land? Don't get me wrong, I don't have an axe to grind against America or its people. If anything, I feel a common exasperation to this awful political 'Hobson's Choice'. Neither candidate is fit for the presidential office. If these two are the best on offer, perhaps it would both prudent and better for all concerned on this planet if this election were to be made null and void.

You gave the world president Bush (the son), not once but twice, and we all know what happened on his watch! It seems that you have not learned anything? Now, you are about to give us an incoherent buffoon or a money-addicted lying harpy who would sell out her own country for 30 pieces of silver. How is this possible? How can either of these two candidates be the best you can offer to yourselves? Don't you deserve better? Is there really no one else? Is the political barrel of America so empty that these are the only two (rotten to the core) apples you could scrape from the bottom? The world is watching with incredulous despair!