Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;1790497]

And that's the point...genius. She was much more likely to be telling the truth when under oath than not. She also told friends, at the time of the incident, that she had been raped. She didn't tell them it wasn't a 'literal' rape. Lol.

The other guy is right, Trump has bought her off. That's his M.O.

Riiiight. When she says bad things about Trump she is telling the truth. When she says good things she is lying. Got it.

[Unregistered]

Excerpt from Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump


“One night he comes in - in a rage - and starts pulling Ivana’s hair. Then according to her sworn deposition testimony ‘he raped me’.

“At this point she is terrified, runs out of the room, runs down the hall to her mother’s room and locks the door behind her. She stays up crying all night.

“The next morning, again according to her testimony, she comes creeping out and sees him and he goes ‘did it hurt?’”

Ivana allegedly told “closest confidantes” that her husband had raped her.


So tell us you Trump apologists...if it isn't true why isn't Trump suing the pants off the author and publisher of this book?
Why would he wimp out and settle for the statement that he bought from Ivana?
Not good.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;1790507]Excerpt from Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump


“One night he comes in - in a rage - and starts pulling Ivana’s hair. Then according to her sworn deposition testimony ‘he raped me’.

“At this point she is terrified, runs out of the room, runs down the hall to her mother’s room and locks the door behind her. She stays up crying all night.

“The next morning, again according to her testimony, she comes creeping out and sees him and he goes ‘did it hurt?’”

Ivana allegedly told “closest confidantes” that her husband had raped her.


So tell us you Trump apologists...if it isn't true why isn't Trump suing the pants off the author and publisher of this book?
Why would he wimp out and settle for the statement that he bought from Ivana?
Not good.[/QUOT

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana said in a statement to CNN. “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz45fNxtkrj
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Unregistered]

Face it you Trump sycophants. You're backing a loser... a FAILED businessman who has left others holding the bag 4 times, a RAPIST, a RACIST, a MISOGYNIST, a XENOPHOBE, a HOMOPHOBE, a ...

[Unregistered]

Personally, I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting against Hillary.

Sad it's come to that.

[Unregistered]

Personally, I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting against Hillary.

Sad it's come to that.

hahahahahahahahha

sad indeed

do you get the point of the discussion? Clinton looks like Jimmy Carter morally with Trump as the yardstick. Saying quite a bit.

[Unregistered]

Personally, I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting against Hillary.

Sad it's come to that.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I can not vote for either Trump or Clinton.

[Unregistered]

Face it you Trump sycophants. You're backing a loser... a FAILED businessman who has left others holding the bag 4 times, a RAPIST, a RACIST, a MISOGYNIST, a XENOPHOBE, a HOMOPHOBE, a ...

Add CRYBABY to that list.

[Unregistered]

hahahahahahahahha

sad indeed

do you get the point of the discussion? Clinton looks like Jimmy Carter morally with Trump as the yardstick. Saying quite a bit.

Discussion? I wouldn't call very much of the last 5700 comments a "discussion".

[Unregistered]

"A little history is in order to appreciate the cynical nadir of climate politics in the U.S. You wouldn’t know it from media coverage, but the closest the U.S. Congress came to passing a serious (if still ineffectual) cap-and-trade program was during the George W. Bush*administration in early 2007. Then, within days of*Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Al Gore announced a revelation: the “climate crisis” no longer required such unpleasant, de facto energy taxes. The problem could be solved with painless handouts to green entrepreneurs.

Hooray! Everybody loves a handout. The activist duo Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus noted that the shift in Mr. Gore’s thinking was “highly significant.” “He knows that cap-and-trade, and most any new regulation, would raise energy prices—a political nonstarter during a recession.”

A proposed oil tax swiftly disappeared from the Obama transition website. With control of all three branches of government in hand, the imminent climate threat to humanity suddenly appeared not so urgent after all—passing a “signature” health-care law did.

Democrats, it turned out, were in favor of climate root canal only when Republicans were in charge.

OK, this is old hat, but what should be striking is how thoroughly the climate lobby has played along. Its main function today has become stringing up apostates as a distraction from Democratic unwillingness to propose policies costly enough that they would actually influence the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases."

http://archive.is/r406l

[Unregistered]

"Take the Exxon prosecution, promoted by the attorneys general of New York and California and a host of their Democratic brethren. Though the case is never meant to be adjudicated in a courtroom, suppose it were and suppose a jury somehow found for the plaintiffs. How would Exxon pay a securities-fraud judgment? By selling oil and gas.

Attacking Exxon is not climate policy making; it’s a distraction. Its purpose is to foster an atmosphere conducive to the Gore-Obama green pork-barrel strategy.

Or take Sheldon Whitehouse, the U.S. senator who has gained notoriety lately by urging the Justice Department to launch a RICO investigation of climate skeptics. He doesn’t urge his Rhode Island constituents to adopt the life-style sacrifices that would actually reduce fossil-fuel consumption. Mr. Whitehouse’s devotion to understanding climate science at all is so microscopic that, in his latest letter of complaint to the Journal, the only science he cites is a Gallup poll.

Or take*Paul Krugman’s columns in the New York Times insisting that if you don’t vote Democratic this fall, the planet is doomed. The colossal unmentionable is that climate activism today exists to promote the Democratic agenda, whatsoever it may be this week. One thing it isn’t, though, is advocacy of, or even mention of, policies that might actually alter the course of climate change."

http://archive.is/r406l

[Unregistered]

"The president’s power-plant rules, even if climate models are accurate, would affect global temperature a century hence by 0.03 degrees Celsius. His fuel mileage rules, though costly to Detroit and a life-support for Tesla, would have even less effect.

The renewable subsidies that SunEdison exploited so recklessly that it may soon be in chapter 11 are good for killing birds. The non-binding Paris agreement Mr. Obama signed in December explicitly stipulates that India and China, the two fast-growing emitters, will keep on emitting as if no agreement had been signed.

We could go on—not that, under any circumstances, a serious whack at global greenhouse emissions was ever in the cards.

Last week, Oxford University scientists said that, to avoid serious climate risks, all building of gas and coal plants must stop this year—which isn’t going to happen. Does this mean you should despair over a possible human effect on climate? No. Climate models are highly uncertain and suggest a broad range of possible outcomes; the media reports only the worst-case scenarios. And left out is the most important variable of all, the near-certainty of large changes in how humans produce and distribute energy over the next 100 years thanks entirely to the independent advance of technology."

http://archive.is/r406l

[Unregistered]

Face it you Trump sycophants. You're backing a loser... a FAILED businessman who has left others holding the bag 4 times, a RAPIST, a RACIST, a MISOGYNIST, a XENOPHOBE, a HOMOPHOBE, a ...

And how is he any different than innumerable politicians, on both sides of the aisle- including HC- many of whom hold office now?
At least he is/was a businessman.
If this is all you can come up with not to vote for him, well...what's left.

[Unregistered]

"If this is all you can come up with not to vote for him..."

Lol!

[Unregistered]

"If this is all you can come up with not to vote for him..."

Lol!

Please list Hillary's ACCOMPLISHMENTS (not job titles), what has she actually accomplished?

I will give you the first one, and without it, we would have never heard of her......She married Bill. Next?