deal me in

[jc456]

Siete is 'apparently' an idiot, for not recognizing that the wiggle word 'apparently' negates the validity of the entire article.

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

 

[jc456]

If the Earth were square, the stars made of cream cheese, the heavens filled with Cool Whip and I had a penis shaped like a cowbell...

 

[Missourian]

Siete is 'apparently' an idiot, for not recognizing that the wiggle word 'apparently' negates the validity of the entire article.

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

 

[Slade3200]

Siete is 'apparently' an idiot, for not recognizing that the wiggle word 'apparently' negates the validity of the entire article.

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

 

[jc456]

Siete is 'apparently' an idiot, for not recognizing that the wiggle word 'apparently' negates the validity of the entire article.

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

you got the answer you were looking for right? they call that rhetorical.

 

[Missourian]

Siete is 'apparently' an idiot, for not recognizing that the wiggle word 'apparently' negates the validity of the entire article.

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm curious, if there were no "apparently" and the claims were true and proven, what would you say?

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

Your hypocrisy is noted. Good day

 

[Missourian]

About the same thing a Democrat would say about the "Hillary stole the furniture from the White House".

I'd say this was pretty nitpicky. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over fines from a flagpole location. One charity gives money to another charity for a lawsuit over a hole-in-one contest. One charity gives to another charity $20,000 for a $400 helmet. It wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the MSM needing to print something anti-Trump.

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

Your hypocrisy is noted. Good day

Translation: Drat, foiled again.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think the Clinton Foundation accusations are "nitpicky" as well?

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

Your hypocrisy is noted. Good day

Translation: Drat, foiled again.

Another miss on your part. Your opinion is noted... give Trump a pass for what you want Hillary investigated for... cool

 

[Missourian]

Nope.

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

Your hypocrisy is noted. Good day

Translation: Drat, foiled again.

Another miss on your part. Your opinion is noted... give Trump a pass for what you want Hillary investigated for... cool

Trump sold access to an office of the United States while he held that office through his charity? That's amazing.

Tell me...what meetings as an elected or appointed government office holder did he hold with foreign entities that contributed to his charity? Specifically? I'll wait.

 

[Missourian]

Another miss on your part. Your opinion is noted... give Trump a pass for what you want Hillary investigated for... cool

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...still waiting....

Trump sold access to an office of the United States while he held that office through his charity? That's amazing.

Tell me...what meetings as an elected or appointed government office holder did he hold with foreign entities that contributed to his charity? Specifically? I'll wait.

 

[Slade3200]

Of course not. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

My pleasure. I thought you had a point...but 'apparently' not.

Your hypocrisy is noted. Good day

Translation: Drat, foiled again.

Another miss on your part. Your opinion is noted... give Trump a pass for what you want Hillary investigated for... cool

Trump sold access to an office of the United States while he held that office through his charity? That's amazing.

Tell me...what meetings as an elected or appointed government office holder did he hold with foreign entities that contributed to his charity? Specifically? I'll wait.

Oh come on now... Like you, i'm not a puppet to the partisan spin. Your claims against Clinton are accusations, nothing has been proven. Both situations with Trump and Clinton are based on accusations of corruptions and wrong doing. You seem to think that Trumps should be dismissed and Clintons should be pursued. Your bias is shown. Just own it.

 

[Missourian]

Oh come on now... Like you, i'm not a puppet to the partisan spin. Your claims against Clinton are accusations, nothing has been proven. Both situations with Trump and Clinton are based on accusations of corruptions and wrong doing. You seem to think that Trumps should be dismissed and Clintons should be pursued. Your bias is shown. Just own it.

I gave you the best analogy...the "Bill and Hillary stole from the White House" scandal.

85 of 154 nongovernmental meetings and calls in her official capacity as SecState were with prior major Clinton Foundation donors. If you concur that this is a fact, it's pretty glaring evidence that there was a sale of access to the office of SecState.

 

[Slade3200]

Oh come on now... Like you, i'm not a puppet to the partisan spin. Your claims against Clinton are accusations, nothing has been proven. Both situations with Trump and Clinton are based on accusations of corruptions and wrong doing. You seem to think that Trumps should be dismissed and Clintons should be pursued. Your bias is shown. Just own it.

I gave you the best analogy...the "Bill and Hillary stole from the White House" scandal.

85 of 154 nongovernmental meetings and calls in her official capacity as SecState were with prior major Clinton Foundation donors. If you concur that this is a fact, it's pretty glaring evidence that there was a sale of access to the office of SecState.

Spin spin spin spin. Keep drinking the Koolaid