If you support Trump, you are destroying our culture

link up

As Steve Hilton writes a law in banking regulation was pretty much drafted by Citigroup bank.

.

Are you actually old?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/25/flashback-hillary-clinton-praised-former-kkk-member-robert-byrd-friend-and-mentor

There you go

For a carrot? Yes. For a head of lettuce, even more so. For a mountain, I am not yet begun in years. For a man, I am just right.

lmao fox news no thanks



that was beautiful.

lmao fox news no thanks



that was beautiful.

It contains a video of what she says maybe you should actually click the link before dismissing something, you probably think CNN is the pinnacle of journalism.

Or do you not believe Hillary's own words?

Well I'll jot it down in my diary of things to watch but ok let's say she's besties with a klansman...


and?

So you're using this as a reason to dissuade people from voting for her, which means you think for purposes of this argument anyway that racism is a significant reason not to vote for someone. Otherwise I don't know why you're mentioning it. That brings us to Trump, who is also racist, so you actually make no sense right now.

They're both racist criminals. What's left now is logic, common sense and political expertise to separate the two...

I can only think of one person but who knows? Trump being in office might rock the boat in the right direction so whatever.

Agree. How does a candidate who is basically a Russian shill make America stronger?

Ahh, I can see you're a big fan of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.

What crime has she committed? When was she convicted? I didn't hear about any such conviction.

I don't support Trump but just cuz someone else does, it doesn't make them automatically racist or "destroying the culture" as you put it.
Do I support him or have his ideals? No. But can I respect someone else as a human being for supporting him? Yes. You don't have to like him or argue with him but at least let people be entitled to support whoever without making assumptions or "rude" about it.

BTW I didn't read that incredible long essay. I just responded to the title.

Well I'm afraid your opinion on this matter holds no weight.

Well I was afraid of that or already knew, lol.

I don't blame you for not reading it though. It took me a solid 5 minutes or more.

Obviously, like most Trumpkins (particularly the British ones), your very poor understanding of the American political system is a big obstacle to you having anything intelligible to say on the subject.

Hillary Clinton has not been the president for the last 30 years; in fact, she's never been president. She certainly wasn't president in 2003 when Iraq was invaded at the behest of a Republican president.

Again, confusion reigns on your part; Hillary Clinton wasn't president when the Libyan campaign occurred. In fact, President Obama didn't even want to get involved; Sarkozy and Cameron were very keen to save the people of Benghazi from being slaughtered in their tens of thousands by that lunatic Ghaddafi and said they were going to intervene.

So she's a warmonger for being in the administration when American forces were involved in the Libyan campaign, and she's a warmonger for not sending American forces into Libya to secure Benghazi? Try to get your story straight.

You're utterly clueless. What are you babbling about now? She wasn't "chucked out of public office". She was the Secretary of State for Obama's first term. She was not interested in serving again in his second term as she expected to spend 2013-2016 building up to the 2016 election and laying the groundwork.

You seem to think she was some kind of elected official who was thrown out by the voters. Again, clueless mate.

Oh my god, you are a complete moron. You genuinely don't have a clue. After this comment I'm adding you to my ignore list.

Leaving aside the fact that Trump said that Syria should be left to ISIS as a "free zone" (in other words, Trump wanted to surrender to ISIS), when ISIS was just starting out and developing in Syria in late 2011 and early 2012, Clinton as Secretary of State, the CIA director Petraeus and SecDef Panetta went to President Obama and tried to convince him to intervene in Syria to support the rebels; they said that if they didn't then Islamists and Al-Qaeda would fill the vacuum and the intelligence was very clear that they already were. Clinton was right. Of course even if they had gone in you'd call her a warmonger, but if the US doesn't go in you say she's supporting ISIS (in other words, whatever the situation no matter what she does you will attack and blame her).

Anyway, from your incoherent babbling, your laughable lack of knowledge of recent history, your utter confusion of the American political system, it's extremely clear that you are of below average intelligence. You're not even at the average level of intelligence, it's obvious you are somewhat below the norm (I'm not saying that to be mean, it's objectively factual); as such no matter what I say you are probably going to struggle to keep up and contribute in any serious way to this conversation. So I think it's best we leave it there. I hope your obvious embitterment and conspiracy obsession works out for you.

So someone who was a high ranked kkk member is the type of person a president should be meeting with?

That is a status quo I would always vote for and defend in the face of a man who spits on the traditions of Anglo-American civilisation; of our tradition for rule of law and democratic norms, of Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution. I would vote for Clinton every day over a man who openly admits he intends to rule as a fascist dictator.