I guess you can't say the actual quotes because you hate the truth so much. Here are the facts.

He claimed that many of the illegals crossing the border illegally were rapists. This was based on claims that 80% of women were raped crossing the boarder, which waspublished in leftist media outlets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

But being a racist, you don't believe poor hispanic women when they claim rape. As a white knight, only rich white girls that get drunk at frat parties are to be automatically believed when they claim rape.

Since you believe all races and cultures are equal, and overpopulation is never a problem anywhere, WTF is the problem with sending them back? Isn't Honduras and Honduran people just as good as the USA? So why is it cruel to send them back to people and a culture that is just as good as America.

 

Trump never used "looser" in refernce to people that served in Vietnam. The fact you need to lie to make a point show how irrational you are.

We can also see how well socialism worked in Venezuala. Why not just move there if Trump is elected?

Now crank up the swearing, Mr. Rational.

 

I can't wait to hear again that if we send em back they'll be victims of the violence in these places. But Trump dare not ever say a lot of people from these places are criminals.

 

 Trump is the only candidate who shares your view on the "race to the bottom" as you put it in regards to international trade. He advocates strict government regulation and sometimes outright control of large businesses- as you do. He is the first major Republican candidate to openly support gay rights, and has for years before Hillary did. I find it hard to see a real difference between you and him on policy issues except perhaps on immigration. 

I can't say I have this exactly right, and I'm not on any side here but, did I understand this articale correctly.

2 -We have guys who fostered the Iraq war on nothing but lies. They said Trump is dangerous. Jeewizzzz.

3- by some accounts these same, known as neocons, caused the killing of as amny as 2.5 million Iraqi citizens

4- it is now known that the war was based a complete farce and shitload of lies.

5- Saddam had nothing to do with 911 is now known

6- Over 8000 American military are dead.

7-The country of Iraq and Afganistan are a dumping ground for bomb fodder---still today

8- that war started and set off the conditions presently in the middle east (I'm scratching my head) commonly refered to as terrorism

9-The US is another 3 to 4 trillion in debt for war goodies

10- And I'm supposed to believe Trump is dangerous.

I would think so if he as prez bombs Europe.

Where is the Geneva convention when it's needed. Unbelievable.

Drumpf is a bullshit artist. He answers with words but they mean nothing. Clinton is a liar. She knows the truth but she manipulates it.

a-fuckin'-men. he, cheney, and that cunt condoleeza were fascists of the highest order. trump couldn't do that much damage even if he wanted to (but he could destabilize things enough for someone worse to step in).

Gave Saddam all those WMDs  the US went looking for. If he would have had any left over from Iraqs war with Iran (that's why he got them in the first place) they were 95% removed in the gulf war. If he had any at the time of the Iraq war they would have deteriorated and been usless anyway.

That is a bunch of crap. Hillary is as much a "liar" as any other politician in American history. Find me one who has not had the apperance of changing positions or "lying". She has been attacked long before she held any public office. The same doomsday bullshit was said about Obama, she is simply the next target. 

 

She's been cleared on Bengazi and cleared on the e-mails. Nobody is claiming she is a saint, poltics is always dirty, but to compair her to Bush Jr who had far more attacks on his outposts, or starting a war based on a lie, and two wars with no exit plan is bullshit, and his cabinet used private technology to send e mails at a far higher rate. Reagan and Nixion by compairison deserve far more condemnation for what they did. 

Bengazi is the fault of budget cuts of the GOP, but that is what they do, cut funding, then blame Dems for what they obstructed in the first place. Same with e-mails of BOTH presidents. Anyone who has every worked short staffed without proper equiptment under conditions requiring speed knows you get to the point of having to make due with what you have in the moment. Again, if we don't want a GOP or Democrat presient resorting to cutting corners, and it wasn't law breaking but protocol in any case, then WE the voters have to demand that the funding makes it possible to set up the proper conditions.

 

And with both Bush and Obama in any case, I am tired of the fucking bullshit that it is a conspiracy. Under both presidents you still had a politically diverse law agents as individuals regardless, because there is no poliitical oath to hold any law office, not the Secret Service, not the State Department, not the FBI not the CIA. The office of the presidency isn't a coup when parties flip, all the past is wiped out and everyone replaced. It is a batton passed down. So if WE as voters don't want those conditions, it isn't as simple as blaming one person because there are countless diverse indvididuals under our leaders that are part of it.

 

But as far as Trump, this is no longer a economic issue or a left or right issue. This is about his temperment and his vile rhetoric which is on par with WW2 Germany. There is only ONE party to blame for our 36 year decliine and that started with Reagan. There is only 1 party responsible for creating the monster demagogue Trump. 

 

The GOP scam is the same. Cut funding, obstruct, then blame everyone else for the problem you created. Then sell the same old  "trickle up" bullshit as a solution. The only thing with the GOP that changes is how they try to re redress the same old arguments. But what has turned this into a real global threat beyond economics is Trump's demagoguery. 

Now, these are not Stalin loving hippy loving moocher liberals like me condemning Trump this is his own party. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccain-adds-latest-salvo-in-gop-dismay-over-trump-clash-with-khan-family/2016/08/01/10ca7e...

http://www.twincities.com/2016/08/01/trump-headed-to-wisconsin-as-gop-leaders-condemn-comments/

And even his Ghost writer of "Art of the Deal" regrets helping him and is concerned like any sane person should be, of what he could do in office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5at3M_Lmog

Now I could give one fuck less what you think of me stooges, but those above are not my comments so argue with the GOP who are at least sane enough to recognize a sociopath.

Trump says nothing. His words are hollow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

 

WTF? The US didn't give him WMD.

Your first link isn't working, could find it online

The rest of the subject isn't even on forgien news websites. The only people spewing this is stuff is rag websites which are extremist conservative views.

I don't doubt America sells weapons to other countries, in fact during the Obama administration we sold more weapons to more countries than Bush did which is disturbing. However if those weapons get in to ISIS hands it would be no different than what Bush's administration did when weapons ended up in the hands of American enemies (or any other administration).

Yes, I know his words are meanless and hollow. He has the vocabulary of a 2nd grader. He is highly uninformed.

Yet somehow is able to communicate to a select number of enlighted/highly intelligent people that can see through is act that he is actualy Hitler incarnate. Trump can't communicate, but we they know for sure he's bringing back cattle cars and gas camps. We just have to trust the elites.

 

Doh

OK. So USA gives Iraw a bag of bolts and nuts which are used to build a nuclear bomb. That counts as giving them WMDs? No. They gave them stuff which was under the guise of being used for medical research and their nuclear program. Fun how people cherry pick the information and then change shit around when it fits their needs.

I would agree with you if the USA gave rockets filled with biological agents or missles with nuclear warheads. Then yes, WMDs were sold to Iraq, but that isn't what they did.

You can't use anything Brian said in a conversation with anyone else. The guy is legitimately retarded and doesn't relate with any active poster on the site. He has literally spent more time arguing with members who lean to the left than he has spent arguing with members on the right over the last two or three years.

go by what the articles say. The ones I read say the US gave WMDs to Iraq to use against Iran, and componants to produce them. If the US and ETAL gave technology for nuclear devises then Saddam got help from the US to do it. I don't see how I can understand this any other way. No cherry picking necessary. If one reads several or at least 6 of the articles the weight goes to -the US did. Now, there are articles that say there were WMDs in Iraq before 3003. Yes, but those weapons were left over fron the gulf war. The news in the 90s staed that 95% of the weapons were destryoed. The 5% remining couldn't be found or weren't kept track of. That means that while there were WMDs in  Iraq they were found to be of little use and unkept. Even degraded bios and Chem weapons can still be harmful but not very potent. The articles in total conclude there were no useful WMDs, and were given by the US and Euro partners.