The latest rumour: Hilary Clinton could be HIV

Seen it in a few places. I do agree Bill is looking quite gaunt lately, but this is scraping the barrel, isn't it?


Clinton’s HIV Secret REVEALED – This Could END Of Hillary’s Campaign!



Authors Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince have released a bombshell report about former President Bill Clinton that could end Hillary’s campaign!

In their new book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President “favored unprotected sex.”

And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery. Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and “new diet” but he has looked increasingly thin and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.

As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.

Bill Clinton is roughly the same age as President George W. Bush. But while Bush looks healthy, Clinton only becomes older and frail.

Even a former Clinton White House advisor admits Bill looks unhealthy and “washed-up”:

Former Bill Clinton advisor and television personality Dick Morris thinks his old boss isn’t looking too good these days.

“I didn’t recognize the character that was on TV,” Morris said of Bill Clinton’s recent interview with NBC News in a video released Monday. “He was washed-out, he was listless, he was apathetic, he was very slow-talking and even slower thinking!”



Here is a picture of Clinton recently appearing on CNN with an unexplained lesion on his forehead. Very strange:



http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hiv-aids-clinton-scandal-revealed-this-could-end-of-hillary-clintons-campaign/


Hmmmm. I think this is pretty low journalism to be honest.

https://youtu.be/zB5mfal_qc4


http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/13/cbs-edits-bill-clinton-health-slip/

slick willy

At least Bill didn't marry an "escort" girl.  How'd Donald's wife get into this country, anyway?  She must know somebody.

Original Quill wrote:At least Bill didn't marry an "escort" girl.  How'd Donald's wife get into this country, anyway?  She must know somebody.

https://www.rosebrides.com/slovenian-brides.html

THE fact that the O/P quotes Rush Limbaugh among its sources, speaks volumes about where these manufactured "rumours" would have started...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE fact that the O/P quotes Rush Limbaugh among its sources,  speaks volumes about where these manufactured "rumours" would have started...

I think it's really distasteful. If it's not true then it's a rotten thing to claim and if it is, she shoulld have our sympathy IMO.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:At least Bill didn't marry an "escort" girl.  How'd Donald's wife get into this country, anyway?  She must know somebody.

https://www.rosebrides.com/slovenian-brides.html

WOW!! Now I know where she came from.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE fact that the O/P quotes Rush Limbaugh among its sources,  speaks volumes about where these manufactured "rumours" would have started...

I think it's really distasteful. If it's not true then it's a rotten thing to claim and if it is, she shoulld have our sympathy IMO.

I agree 100%.

If as is claimed he is a womaniser and prefers unprotected sex, I am damn sure that Hilary would have the nous not to leave herself open to any infection he may be spreading.

"Leave herself open"

Had to be said. Humour is my crutch.

eddie wrote:"Leave herself open"

Had to be said. Humour is my crutch.

Crotch.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:"Leave herself open"

Had to be said. Humour is my crutch.

Crotch.

I say crutch. I'm common.

Original Quill wrote:At least Bill didn't marry an "escort" girl.  How'd Donald's wife get into this country, anyway?  She must know somebody.

no bill just fucked them and then left them, some even said yes, but not all

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:At least Bill didn't marry an "escort" girl.  How'd Donald's wife get into this country, anyway?  She must know somebody.

no bill just fucked them and then left them, some even said yes, but not all

But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the wall of the first floor loo: For a good time, call...donno, the residence? -- Putin 

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no bill just fucked them and then left them, some even said yes, but not all

But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the first floor bathroom wall: For a good time, call...donno, the receptionist?  

The Daily Mail published a story implying she had been an escort, she is suing they have retracted the story.....apologised and admitted they were wrong.

What proof do you have?

I have noticed that Mr Quill is very quick to believe rumours or make up stories about Trump, but sees a video of Clinton stumbling and obviously sick - despite these stories circulating for months too - and denies what he's seeing!!

There are none so blind etc etc

eddie wrote:I have noticed that Mr Quill is very quick to believe rumours or make up stories about Trump, but sees a video of Clinton stumbling and obviously sick - despite these stories circulating for months too - and denies what he's seeing!!

There are none so blind etc etc

Haha...that's true now you mention it.
First he said she didn't stumble, then he couldn't see....everyone else managed to see though.

As for Trumps wife being an escort ...proof not gossip would be nice.

I watched the full video of the Trump/Clinton debate, she won hands down and made him look like a blundering bullyboy, but I saw no signs he was a coke addict.

Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the first floor bathroom wall: For a good time, call...donno, the residence?  

The Daily Mail published a story implying she had been an escort, she is suing they have retracted the story.....apologised and admitted they were wrong.

The suit is all bluff. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice. The First Amendment prohibits it.

She is betting that a court would rule she is not a public figure. She would lose. The Daily Mail retracted the story because it didn't want the fight.

eddie wrote:Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

Yep.....I have nothing nice to say about him he is horrendous, but surely if he was on coke it would have been made public before now. After all didn't he do rather a lot of whinging in that debate about how Clintons camp have spent millions trying to discredit him in their advertising campaign?
A coke addict and an ex hooker for a wife would have been their top priorities surely, that's IF there was any truth in it.

Syl wrote:I watched the full video of the Trump/Clinton debate, she won hands down and made him look like a blundering bullyboy, but I saw no signs he was a coke addict.

eddie wrote:Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

I posted visual evidence. But you are both extreme RW'rs, and would deny an elephant was in the room if went against your candidate.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I watched the full video of the Trump/Clinton debate, she won hands down and made him look like a blundering bullyboy, but I saw no signs he was a coke addict.

eddie wrote:Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

I posted visual evidence.  But you are both extreme RW'rs, and would deny an elephant was in the room if went against your candidate.

Now I'm done talking to you. Not only is that not even a correct fact Quill, but I'm insulted you would stoop that low as to say that.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

Yep.....I have nothing nice to say about him he is horrendous, but surely if he was on coke it would have been made public before now. After all didn't he do rather a lot of whinging in that debate about how Clintons camp have spent millions  trying to discredit him in their advertising campaign?
A coke addict and an ex hooker for a wife would have been their top priorities surely, that's IF there was any truth in it.

Well, everybody is talking about it. How do you think I got the youtube visual evidence? Just Google it. There are dozens of pieces.

The reason, I'm convinced, that the Hillary camp doesn't mention it is because they won the debate so handily that it's not worth mentioning. For once, she got to argue the issues, why sully the debate when she's better off showing her achievements and qualifications.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:



The Daily Mail published a story implying she had been an escort, she is suing they have retracted the story.....apologised and admitted they were wrong.

The suit is all bluff.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice.  The First Amendment prohibits it.

She is betting that a court would rule she is not a public figure.  She would lose.  The Daily Mail retracted the story because it didn't want the fight.

Could she not sue for 'Actual malice' if the newspaper deliberately published lies about her?

How come so may public figures (film stars etc) sue newspapers and magazines?

The Daily Mail know their rites very well, They are on a par with the National enquirer for printing scandals. I'm sure if they knew she had no chance of suing they wouldn't have retracted, they would probably have embroidered it.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



I posted visual evidence.  But you are both extreme RW'rs, and would deny an elephant was in the room if went against your candidate.

Now I'm done talking to you. Not only is that not even a correct fact Quill, but I'm insulted you would stoop that low as to say that.

Really and truly, I thought you knew me better than that. But no matter.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I watched the full video of the Trump/Clinton debate, she won hands down and made him look like a blundering bullyboy, but I saw no signs he was a coke addict.

eddie wrote:Me neither really Syl, but I am open to possibilities.

I posted visual evidence.  But you are both extreme RW'rs, and would deny an elephant was in the room if went against your candidate.

That's exactly what you did was Hilary went all wobbly.

You like to stick labels on people don't you Quill...I'm still waiting for you to explain the last one you called me.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yep.....I have nothing nice to say about him he is horrendous, but surely if he was on coke it would have been made public before now. After all didn't he do rather a lot of whinging in that debate about how Clintons camp have spent millions  trying to discredit him in their advertising campaign?
A coke addict and an ex hooker for a wife would have been their top priorities surely, that's IF there was any truth in it.

Well, everybody is talking about it.  How do you think I got the youtube visual evidence?  Just Google it.  There are dozens of pieces.

The reason, I'm convinced, that the Hillary camp doesn't mention it is because they won the debate so handily that it's not worth mentioning.  For once, she got to argue the issues, why sully the debate when she's better off showing her achievements and qualifications.

The ads he was talking about have been seen in USA long before the debate went out.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The suit is all bluff.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice.  The First Amendment prohibits it.

She is betting that a court would rule she is not a public figure.  She would lose.  The Daily Mail retracted the story because it didn't want the fight.

Could she not sue for 'Actual malice' if the newspaper deliberately published lies about her?

Yes.

Syl wrote:How come so may public figures (film stars etc) sue newspapers and magazines?

Most don't. Because they'd lose. The two that won recently are sportscaster Erin Andrews and wrestler Hulk Hogan, and those suits were for invasion of privacy, not malicious allegations.

Syl wrote:The Daily Mail know their rites very well, They are on a par with the National enquirer for printing scandals. I'm sure if they knew she had no chance of suing they wouldn't have retracted, they would probably have embroidered it.

A political opponent is a lot riskier for a publishing house. The stakes of the suit are a pittance compared to what they might lose in terms of access to the president should Trump, by some miracle, win. They are ducking this one on the off chance that they would be excluded completely over here--again, should Trump win.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Could she not sue for 'Actual malice' if the newspaper deliberately published lies about her?

Yes.

Syl wrote:How come so may public figures (film stars etc) sue newspapers and magazines?

Most don't.  Because they'd lose.  The two that won recently are sportscaster Erin Andrews and wrestler Hulk Hogan, and those suits were for invasion of privacy, not malicious allegations.

Syl wrote:The Daily Mail know their rites very well, They are on a par with the National enquirer for printing scandals. I'm sure if they knew she had no chance of suing they wouldn't have retracted, they would probably have embroidered it.

A political opponent is a lot riskier for a publishing house.  The stakes of the suit are a pittance compared to what they might lose in terms of access to the president should Trump, by some miracle, win.  They are ducking this one on the off chance that they would be excluded completely over here--again, should Trump win.

Right, so she COULD sue and she COULD win, so your first post was incorrect.

Both Sean Penn and James Woods have recently sued for "malicious" remarks made against them....I read James Woods is suing someone for 10 million $$ for saying online he was a coke addict....(Lets hope Trump doesn't read here).

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, everybody is talking about it.  How do you think I got the youtube visual evidence?  Just Google it.  There are dozens of pieces.

The reason, I'm convinced, that the Hillary camp doesn't mention it is because they won the debate so handily that it's not worth mentioning.  For once, she got to argue the issues, why sully the debate when she's better off showing her achievements and qualifications.

The ads he was talking about have been seen in USA long before the debate went out.

I haven't seen any ads re: Donald's cocaine use.  Hillary is using an ingenious tactic in her advertisements: she is simply playing Trump's own words from file clips, back at him.  Then there's no question about truth in her ads.

The excessive sniffling issue just came up on Monday.  I doubt that she would make an issue of it, because she is fighting two battles: 1) running for the presidency; and 2) to to keep the focus on issues and the public interest.  

If she went down the path of the cocaine sniffling, a reactionary Donald Trump would go ballistic and there would be no chance of a political discussion.  It serves nothing, except that we the voters would want to know if the president was a coke addict.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The ads he was talking about have been seen in USA long before the debate went out.

I haven't seen any ads re: Donald's cocaine use.  Hillary is using an ingenious tactic in her advertisements: she is simply playing Trump's own words from file clips, back at him.  Then there's no question about truth in her ads.

The excessive sniffling issue just came up on Monday.  I doubt that she would make an issue of it, because she is fighting two battles: 1) running for the presidency; and 2) to to keep the focus on issues and the public interest.  

If she went down the path of the cocaine sniffling, a reactionary Donald Trump would go ballistic and there would be no chance of a political discussion.  It serves nothing, except that we the voters would want to know if the president was a coke addict.

I don't know whether he is or not,,,,he did sniff a lot at the beginning of the debate, I watched it from beginning to end, my thoughts were he could have had a cold.

The ads he was moaning about were the TV ads that the Clinton camp have released over the last weeks. I haven't seen any, he said they were full of lies.
Obviously Hilary would not bring this up in the debate, she is smarter than that, but if there was proof surely that would have come out in the build up to this campaign....it would be the one thing to ensure he never got to be president, that's for sure.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes.



Most don't.  Because they'd lose.  The two that won recently are sportscaster Erin Andrews and wrestler Hulk Hogan, and those suits were for invasion of privacy, not malicious allegations.



A political opponent is a lot riskier for a publishing house.  The stakes of the suit are a pittance compared to what they might lose in terms of access to the president should Trump, by some miracle, win.  They are ducking this one on the off chance that they would be excluded completely over here--again, should Trump win.

Right, so she COULD sue and she COULD win, so your first post  was incorrect.

To the contrary, she couldn't show malice in the story. I don't think that her suit against the Daily Mail was any more than chain-rattling. The newspaper backed-off because it saw, three or four chess move ahead, that they would be risking access.

Syl wrote:Both Sean Penn and James Woods have recently sued for "malicious" remarks made against them....I read James Woods is suing someone for 10 million $$ for saying online he was a coke addict....(Lets hope Trump doesn't read here).  

Wait and see what happens? Why do you think you read about these stories in the papers? Because it happens so infrequently that IT'S BIG NEWS! These lawsuits come in like a lion, and go out like a lamb. You never hear about how the plaintiff tucked tail and ran...or worse, paid off the defendant...perhaps with a publicity interview, or other.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Right, so she COULD sue and she COULD win, so your first post  was incorrect.

To the contrary, she couldn't show malice in the story.  I don't think that her suit against the Daily Mail was any more than chain-rattling.  The newspaper backed-off because it saw, three or four chess move ahead, that they would be risking access.

Syl wrote:Both Sean Penn and James Woods have recently sued for "malicious" remarks made against them....I read James Woods is suing someone for 10 million $$ for saying online he was a coke addict....(Lets hope Trump doesn't read here).  

Wait and see what happens?  Why do you think you read about these stories in the papers?  Because it happens so infrequently that IT'S BIG NEWS!  These lawsuits come in like a lion, and go out like a lamb.  You never hear about how the plaintiff tucked tail and ran...or worse, paid off the defendant...perhaps with a publicity interview, or other.

Yes Quill...but all that does not make your previous statement accurate does it?
And implying she became a top model by supplying other services to wealthy clients sounds pretty malicious to me.

You previously said...

"The suit is all bluff.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice.  The First Amendment prohibits it."

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I haven't seen any ads re: Donald's cocaine use.  Hillary is using an ingenious tactic in her advertisements: she is simply playing Trump's own words from file clips, back at him.  Then there's no question about truth in her ads.

The excessive sniffling issue just came up on Monday.  I doubt that she would make an issue of it, because she is fighting two battles: 1) running for the presidency; and 2) to to keep the focus on issues and the public interest.  

If she went down the path of the cocaine sniffling, a reactionary Donald Trump would go ballistic and there would be no chance of a political discussion.  It serves nothing, except that we the voters would want to know if the president was a coke addict.

I don't know whether he is or not,,,,he did sniff a lot at the beginning of the debate, I watched it from beginning to end, my thoughts were he could have had a cold.

The ads he was moaning about were the TV ads that the Clinton camp have released over the last weeks. I haven't seen any, he said they were full of lies.

Donald Trump honestly doesn't know what a lie is. I'm serious. He believes that if he said something, and then later "explained it away", that it didn't happen. He thinks the Howard Stern interview, in which he said he was for invasion of Iraq, was supposed to go away in the Sean Hannity interview some time later. Every day he says some incautious thing, and then thinks it goes away if he just says he didn't say it.

Trump is so critical of the appearance of lies, yet he is oblivious of his own lies. He lies all the time, and then lies to cover up those lies. All Republicans are liars, but frankly most stock Washington politicians are much more skillful than Trump. They know what it looks like on the other end...he doesn't.

Syl wrote:Obviously Hilary would not bring this up in the debate, she is smarter than that, but if there was proof surely that would have come out in the build up to this campaign....it would be the one thing to ensure he never got to be president, that's for sure.

Which is why he maybe keeps it under wraps. But sooner or later all crooks slip up, and when they do it can be at the most inopportune moments. Maybe next time we might look and see some white powder residue on his upper lip. Armed with his sniffle-fits on Monday, we'll fur sure be looking.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know whether he is or not,,,,he did sniff a lot at the beginning of the debate, I watched it from beginning to end, my thoughts were he could have had a cold.

The ads he was moaning about were the TV ads that the Clinton camp have released over the last weeks. I haven't seen any, he said they were full of lies.

Donald Trump honestly doesn't know what a lie is.  I'm serious.  He believes that if he said something, and then later "explained it away", that it didn't happen.  He thinks the Howard Stern interview, in which he said he was for invasion of Iraq, was supposed to go away in the Sean Hannity interview some time later.  Every day he says some incautious thing, and then thinks it goes away if he just says he didn't say it.

Trump is so critical of the appearance of lies, yet he is oblivious of his own lies.  He lies all the time, and then lies to cover up those lies.  All Republicans are liars, but frankly most stock Washington politicians are much more skillful than Trump.  They know what it looks like on the other end...he doesn't.

Syl wrote:Obviously Hilary would not bring this up in the debate, she is smarter than that, but if there was proof surely that would have come out in the build up to this campaign....it would be the one thing to ensure he never got to be president, that's for sure.

Which is why he maybe keeps it under wraps.  But sooner or later all crooks slip up, and when they do it can be at the most inopportune moments.  Maybe next time we might look and see some white powder residue on his upper lip.  Armed with his sniffle-fits on Monday, we'll fur sure be looking.

He is vile, I think we agree on that.
Whether or not he takes coke is so far just an assumption on here made by you, it's certainly not proven, and that doesn't make either me, Eddie or anyone else RW, LW or any other wing to point out this fact.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To the contrary, she couldn't show malice in the story.  I don't think that her suit against the Daily Mail was any more than chain-rattling.  The newspaper backed-off because it saw, three or four chess move ahead, that they would be risking access.



Wait and see what happens?  Why do you think you read about these stories in the papers?  Because it happens so infrequently that IT'S BIG NEWS!  These lawsuits come in like a lion, and go out like a lamb.  You never hear about how the plaintiff tucked tail and ran...or worse, paid off the defendant...perhaps with a publicity interview, or other.

Yes Quill...but all that does not make your previous statement accurate does it?
And implying she became a top model by supplying other services to wealthy clients sounds pretty malicious to me.

You previously said...

"The suit is all bluff.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice.  The First Amendment prohibits it."

We'll talk after you listen to this.

Actually Quill you're the one that bangs on about RW's making shit up and spreading rumours about the other side.

Have you switched sides by any chance....?

And a YouTube clip, put together by someone in their bedroom is hardly evidence....it would be thrown out of court me lord!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes Quill...but all that does not make your previous statement accurate does it?
And implying she became a top model by supplying other services to wealthy clients sounds pretty malicious to me.

You previously said...

"The suit is all bluff.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure cannot sue for publication of stories, absent malice.  The First Amendment prohibits it."

We'll talk after you listen to this.

I listened.
Harold Stern is a lewd creep, everyone who goes on his radio show is interrogated in the same personal way. I blame Trump for exposing her to that creep.....he used her like a trophy girlfriend, wallowing in the way Stern was talking to her, and she was stupid to go along with it, I don't think she understood half of what he was leering about anyway, she kept asking him to repeat what he had said.

What do you think this proves?

eddie wrote:Actually Quill you're the one that bangs on about RW's making shit up and spreading rumours about the other side.

Have you switched sides by any chance....?

And a YouTube clip, put together by someone in their bedroom is hardly evidence....it would be thrown out of court me lord!

The absent malice standard announced by New York Times v. Sullivan, was put forth by the Supreme Court in an effort to protect investigative journalism, which the Court deems essential to a democracy.

The hallmark of investigative journalism is to be able to ask questions, even--indeed, especially--when you don't know the answer. That tool has to be given to the press in a democracy, because otherwise the asking questions part would be stifled.

Donald Trump skates almost too close to the line. In fact, yes, all Republicans do. You have to have some facts to suggest asking the question. There are no facts re: Hillary's involvement in Benghazi, nor is there one scintilla of any wrongdoing regarding Hillary's email practices. It was impracticable, but not illegal. Least of all were there any secrets involved.

I mention that because that is bar for politicians. Hillary's Republican opponents get away with their malice, not because there's any truth to the matter, but because the standard lets them go that far. If you can't ask questions in a democracy, you don't have a democracy.

Now, here we have much more to suggest Donald's cocaine habit, than Republicans have to suggest that there were secrets passed by Hillary over the Internet by her legal server. It's serious business if you have a president who is addicted to a delusional substance, while having his finger on the red button. That's a question that must be asked in a democracy--particularly one having the arsenal that the US has.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



We'll talk after you listen to this.

I listened.
Harold Stern is a lewd creep, everyone who goes on his radio show is interrogated in the same personal way. I blame Trump for exposing her to that creep.....he used her like a trophy girlfriend, wallowing in the way Stern was talking to her, and she was stupid to go along with it, I don't think she understood half of what he was leering about anyway, she kept asking him to repeat what he had said.

What do you think this proves?

That Trump doesn't have the temperament or the judgement to be president.

Okay I think we have established something:

Everything that is printed, or any videos, or any negative reports made about Trump are true and all negative stuff about Clinton, is false.

Got it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I listened.
Harold Stern is a lewd creep, everyone who goes on his radio show is interrogated in the same personal way. I blame Trump for exposing her to that creep.....he used her like a trophy girlfriend, wallowing in the way Stern was talking to her, and she was stupid to go along with it, I don't think she understood half of what he was leering about anyway, she kept asking him to repeat what he had said.

What do you think this proves?

That Trump doesn't have the temperament or the judgement to be president.

I thought you meant this proved his wife was once a hooker, (obviously it doesn't)   you have implied this  several times now with no proof.

One eg, you said......."But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the wall of the first floor loo: For a good time, call...donno, the residence? -- Putin" 

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That Trump doesn't have the temperament or the judgement to be president.

I thought you meant this proved his wife was once a hooker, (obviously it doesn't)   you have implied this  several times now with no proof.

One eg, you said......."But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the wall of the first floor loo: For a good time, call...donno, the residence? -- Putin" 

I think character and dignity matter. We have allowed the status of the campaign for presidency to sink to the gutter. It would be much more serious if the actual presidency were to sink that low.

The Trumps are way out of the league.

I think it's all just another race to the bottom and comes down to who the American people want least...!


I think Americans should all get their heads together and vote for one of the other candidates...!

Tommy Monk wrote:I think it's all just another race to the bottom and comes down to who the American people want least...!


I think Americans should all get their heads together and vote for one of the other candidates...!

Who would you vote for, if you could?

The media is in full steam ahead brainwash mode over there with the hard sell that it is definitely going to be one of these two winning...


I don't think there are that many Americans who genuinely like either of them...


But... I think that Americans are being played into voting for/and electing someone (nobody really wants)... for fear of letting the other person (nobody really wants) win!!!

I agree with your post but you didn't answer my question!

Tommy Monk wrote:
The media is in full steam ahead brainwash mode over there with the hard sell that it is definitely going to be one of these two winning...

I don't think there are that many Americans who genuinely like either of them...

But... I think that Americans are being played into voting for/and electing someone (nobody really wants)... for fear of letting the other person (nobody really wants) win!!!

Probably right, but it's in the math.

Let's face it, there isn't a one of us who doesn't think "I could do better". But if everybody voted for him- or herself, we would be in the same boat. So, you've gotta have some system.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I thought you meant this proved his wife was once a hooker, (obviously it doesn't)   you have implied this  several times now with no proof.

One eg, you said......."But Bill isn't running for President today.  Donald is...and that means an escort service lady will be first lady.

I can see it written on the wall of the first floor loo: For a good time, call...donno, the residence? -- Putin" 

I think character and dignity matter.  We have allowed the status of the campaign for presidency to sink to the gutter.  It would be much more serious if the actual presidency were to sink that low.

The Trumps are way out of the league.

Of course character and dignity matter, but implying the woman is an ex hooker without proof, just to prove she is not a suitable first lady... doesn't show much character or dignity on your part.

I like Jerry Springers recent quote..."Hilary Clinton belongs in the white house, Donald Trump belongs on my show"