Trump says he was kidding. Really!

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

FluteHolder wrote:Is there any NOTA kind of thing here to reject both/all the candidates?

southindian wrote:Actually he chickened out after brash nonsense backfired.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking-sarcastic/index.html

Curious!

So tell me people who believe in Trump and will vote for him.

Which part made you his follower... that YOU feel he's is not kidding.

Where do his lies begin..... or end. If they do end.

Here's that 2 happened in this episode. He blabered... caught his hair on fire... Then chickened out, saying he was kidding.

He's a joke and almost the entire Republican party has distanced himself from Trump.

swapna wrote:

southindian wrote:Actually he chickened out after brash nonsense backfired.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking-sarcastic/index.html

Curious!

So tell me people who believe in Trump and will vote for him.

Which part made you his follower... that YOU feel he's is not kidding.

Where do his lies begin..... or end. If they do end.

Here's that 2 happened in this episode. He blabered... caught his hair on fire... Then chickened out, saying he was kidding.

He's a joke and almost the entire Republican party has distanced himself from Trump.

mr. patel,

what does it mean for trump to have "blabered," or to have "caught his hair on fire?"

the entire republican party has distanced himself from trump?" that can be taken to be funny, but I don't think that northpeepals like you can be humorous, or that the republican party has yet been reduced to one male person.

you should post this on some emdavadi forum; it's sure to be appreciated.

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

southindian wrote:Actually he chickened out after brash nonsense backfired.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking-sarcastic/index.html

Curious!

So tell me people who believe in Trump and will vote for him.

Which part made you his follower... that YOU feel he's is not kidding.

Where do his lies begin..... or end. If they do end.

Here's what happened in this episode. He blabered... caught his hair on fire... Then chickened out, saying he was kidding.

He's a joke and almost the entire Republican party has distanced himself from Trump.

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

I'm not disregarding what trump said, and I suspect, not many are.

you seem to be merely mouthing what the republicans charged hillary with in bill clinton's first term. they cooked up those charges because they objected to the clintons' posture as co-presidents. why didn't they object directly to the "co-presidency?" that's a long story, but briefly, the reason is rooted in the american's desire to preserve the role of "the first lady."

"war monger?" it's preposterous to label someone a warmonger because the u.s. didn't interfere in tunisia, egypt, libya, or syria. you have more reason to call her a pacifist. 

there is a long history of the u.s., especially under republican administrations, invading foreign countries, just because it has "the most powerful military on earth," and it has gven itself the role of the world's policeman; I haven't heard hillary advocate any such action, and if she ever does, she would only be following in the footsteps of a long line of u.s. presidents.

in other words, your complaints and charges about hillary don't make sense. are you just a frustrated republican who is getting used to the idea of an ignominious defeat in november, 2016?

silvermani wrote:

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

I'm not disregarding what trump said, and I suspect, not many are.

you seem to be merely mouthing what the republicans charged hillary with in bill clinton's first term. they cooked up those charges because they objected to the clintons' posture as co-presidents. why didn't they object directly to the "co-presidency?" that's a long story, but briefly, the reason is rooted in the american's desire to preserve the role of "the first lady."

"war monger?" it's preposterous to label someone a warmonger because the u.s. didn't interfere in tunisia, egypt, libya, or syria. you have more reason to call her a pacifist. 

there is a long history of the u.s., especially under republican administrations, invading foreign countries, just because it has "the most powerful military on earth," and it has gven itself the role of the world's policeman; I haven't heard hillary advocate any such action, and if she ever does, she would only be following in the footsteps of a long line of u.s. presidents.

in other words, your complaints and charges about hillary don't make sense. are you just a frustrated republican who is getting used to the idea of an ignominious defeat in november, 2016?

Are you a bored "researcher" who takes an opposing view to everything that is said here to elicit responses from people for your entertainment?

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

I'm not disregarding what trump said, and I suspect, not many are.

you seem to be merely mouthing what the republicans charged hillary with in bill clinton's first term. they cooked up those charges because they objected to the clintons' posture as co-presidents. why didn't they object directly to the "co-presidency?" that's a long story, but briefly, the reason is rooted in the american's desire to preserve the role of "the first lady."

"war monger?" it's preposterous to label someone a warmonger because the u.s. didn't interfere in tunisia, egypt, libya, or syria. you have more reason to call her a pacifist. 

there is a long history of the u.s., especially under republican administrations, invading foreign countries, just because it has "the most powerful military on earth," and it has gven itself the role of the world's policeman; I haven't heard hillary advocate any such action, and if she ever does, she would only be following in the footsteps of a long line of u.s. presidents.

in other words, your complaints and charges about hillary don't make sense. are you just a frustrated republican who is getting used to the idea of an ignominious defeat in november, 2016?

Are you a bored "researcher" who takes an opposing view to everything that is said here to elicit responses from people for your entertainment?

I am never bored, but am hardly ever entertained by anything posted here. I shall appreciate your explaining why you refer to hillary as a war monger.

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:

swapna wrote:

silvermani wrote:Regardless of what Trump said or who hacked, the fact of the matter is Hitlary has skeletons in her closet. Do you want a career criminal to be your President? Do you feel okay with pay to play schemes where contracts are awarded in return for "donations" to the so called charitable trust? Are you okay with a war monger whose arab spring strategy has resulted in a wave of terror all over the islamic world and europe?

I'm not disregarding what trump said, and I suspect, not many are.

you seem to be merely mouthing what the republicans charged hillary with in bill clinton's first term. they cooked up those charges because they objected to the clintons' posture as co-presidents. why didn't they object directly to the "co-presidency?" that's a long story, but briefly, the reason is rooted in the american's desire to preserve the role of "the first lady."

"war monger?" it's preposterous to label someone a warmonger because the u.s. didn't interfere in tunisia, egypt, libya, or syria. you have more reason to call her a pacifist. 

there is a long history of the u.s., especially under republican administrations, invading foreign countries, just because it has "the most powerful military on earth," and it has gven itself the role of the world's policeman; I haven't heard hillary advocate any such action, and if she ever does, she would only be following in the footsteps of a long line of u.s. presidents.

in other words, your complaints and charges about hillary don't make sense. are you just a frustrated republican who is getting used to the idea of an ignominious defeat in november, 2016?

Are you a bored "researcher" who takes an opposing view to everything that is said here to elicit responses from people for your entertainment?

I am never bored, but am hardly ever entertained by anything posted here. I shall appreciate your explaining why you refer to hillary as a war monger.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

southindian wrote:Actually he chickened out after brash nonsense backfired.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking-sarcastic/index.html

Curious!

So tell me people who believe in Trump and will vote for him.

Which part made you his follower... that YOU feel he's is not kidding.

Where do his lies begin..... or end. If they do end.

Here's what happened in this episode. He blabered... caught his hair on fire... Then chickened out, saying he was kidding.

He's a joke and almost the entire Republican party has distanced himself from Trump.

He was just being sarcastic when he made that "appeal"

But, he should know there is no such thing as safe "humor" or "sarcasm" in politics. Humor is very difficult as it should not be controversial at any level on anyone/anything. That is why as one moves up a career (including politics), they cut out the humor and become more and more boring in delivery and straight talk. Trump has never worked under anyone and always been the boss and hence talking/doing thing the way he did as a 21 yr old. It is hard to change at this age and after a few Dubya-like SNL mockeries, ppl will simply not President Trump seriouisly.  What is worse is that this "guy" cannot - repeat cannot - take ANY criticism by anyone.  If this guy wins - God forbid - that will be a testing time for Americans (bcz this guy is downright stupid, arrogant, egotist, and a dumpkof.)