The EU debate - Part III

This is a fact. The democrats put up the worst possible candidate imo. Trump gained votes simply because Clinton is intensely disliked.

I think Trump will be a short lived disaster, due to his complete inability to keep his mouth shut. There's no way he can become the Statesman the role requires overnight.

In an odd way, this might be a blessing for American politics in the medium / long term, as it might actually make them realise that it's the substance behind the persona that's the key element of what makes a great leader.

 

I think he'd done a couple of lines before that was shot

 

Mary Mahoney? The guy confessed to it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/march99/cooper18.htm
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-04-26/news/0004270195_1_starbucks-cooper-washington

Willey was a bullshitter and they had a ton of evidence to prove that, which they did.
She admitted to lying about a whole bunch of things, which completely discredited her.
She didn't drop the charges. She lost the case.
What would they have to gain by killing her husband?
He left five different suicide notes, all addressed to friends and family.

Sorry Bodanki, but this is all quite conspiracy theory mental stuff.
The Clintons have actual stuff that's worth throwing at them, but this isn't it.
None of it even makes any sense. They'd be really weird murders and often wouldn't help.

 

To be honest I have never really thought about it like that, so not quite sure how to answer it.
I guess it only takes 1 person who has taken Trumps pre-election comments as some kind of green light to commit race crime and a small flashpoint to actually kick it off and it could then be total carnage.

 

I am definitely not a conspiracy theorist mate.

The fact that a guy admitted to killing Mary Mahooney? And? We know someone killed her, I wasn't suggesting it was Hillary herself in a Ski mask.
They are called Patsys or Fall Guys.

Willey changes her story halfway through a trial after her husband is killed, and retracts almost every claim she made, saying she made it up.......you are not seeing the pattern there?

That's just the circumstantial **** though.
Read the article I linked, their corruption knows no bounds.

 

So there's no evidence that the Clintons were involved and someone else has admitted it, but it's not a conspiracy theory?
Ok then, what makes you think that they did it? It seems to be consistent with the other **** that he did.

Willey changed her testimony because some of it was internally contradictory.
She'd given completely different versions of the same event under oath and was facing charges because of it.
Her husband killed himself and killing him wouldn't have prevented her from testifying, which she did anyway.

Bill Clinton's clearly a shagger and it wouldn't surprise me if there'd been pay-offs along the way.
Both Clintons have also made a bunch of money from various financial institutions, including the speech payments.
Stuff like the emails, Benghazi and these wild murder accusations are just aimless, though.
They've been investigated endlessly and gone nowhere. The evidence just isn't there.

 

You're just seeing what you want to see. The Clinton's were in difficulties during Bill's time and they're still in difficulties now. To try to claim they're clean is simply ridiculous.

 

I get ya.
But of course someone else did the shooting, you don't think Bill or Hillary would have personally gone and shot her themselves do you?
Like I said, there is a stack of circumstantial evidence regarding murders carried out by and for the Clinton's, but you are ignoring the other instances of corruption as detailed in the article.
Being in bed with Saudis, dodgy financial dealings.
You seriously think people with the financial and political clout of the Clinton's wouldn't be able to sufficiently cover their tracks?
Thats not to mention the $6m payments from the foundation to the FBI Director.
Most people, if being investigated for corruption, do not give $6m to the head of the organisation investigating them.
That alone doesn't strike you as odd?

 

It tends to be the opposition spinning Trumps opinions that create the impression, so the blame would lay squarely with them. I posted earlier Jess Jackson giving Trump an award and praise for his work with minority groups.

 

Not to mention both Clinton AND Trumps affiliations with Jeffrey Epstein for crying out loud!!

People forget, Trump and Clinton, before this election, were actually friends.

 

I din't claim that they're clean. The Republicans keep harping on about things that are ****e, though.
If the emails are important, then why aren't Bushes? Why isn't he in jail?

 

I see it as the complete opposite. I think he will stubbornly soldier on, as if to prove a point that you don't have to have had the "political education".
I agree with the frustration part as you can tell by his demeanour, that he's not used to not getting his own way.

 

They're still being investigated. Perhaps now their pals are in less of a position to put pressure on the key places, there'll be a different outcome.

It's a matter of security and policy to delete emails, just not rapidly the minute you think the FBI are going to start looking.

 

That's a genuine worry.

In the same way as some of the moron element have taken the Brexit vote as a green light to attack foreigners, both verbally and physically, I wonder how long it will be before some bunch of rednecks will think it's a great idea to shoot a few Mexicans!.?

 

He's not so glowing these days

 

Thats just a regular Tuesday in the States mate.
Their gun laws are beyond ****ed up.

 

The Clintons wouldn't murder people involved in court cases against them at all, let alone by proxy, in my opinion.
It's far too risky. Doing it yourself would be bad, but getting someone else to do it would leave a bigger trail.
They've got enough money and power not to be worried by that sort of thing, especially when those killed aren't important.
A Whitehouse tour guide with no real evidence? The husband of a fantasist, who's been caught lying under oath?
Why risk it? It doesn't add up.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with a $6m payment to the FBI director from their foundation story.
Have I missed something?

 

You've completely avoided my question.
The Bush administration had two servers and they removed evidence that could've been used in an actual scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
Whoops, we've lost 22m incriminating emails? Er, that's ok, you're on our side!

 

I know. I lived there for 4 yrs altogether.

Everybody had a gun, including me!

But, there is a danger that the more volatile element of the **** kicker brigade will think it's open season on wetbacks!...