The Donald: Is he a liar, an idiot, or both?


Here is a link to an interview from this morning.
David Duke publicly endorsed The Donald for POTUS. Duke stated that, "voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage [whiteness?]."
The Donald refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of a question about David Duke, who is a former Grand Dragon of the KKK, and who has never denounced his own connections with the KKK, nor condemned their tactics nor their support in his own political campaigns. The Donald claims that he doesn't even know who David Duke is. "Honestly[?], I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I've didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him," Trump said.

Now, The Donald and I are close in age. I'll be 69 in April; The Donald will be 70 in June. I know who David Duke is! And I have been far less connected to national politics over the years than has The Donald! I know that David Duke was in the Louisiana legislature for many years. I know that David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana and garnered 60% of the "European-American vote" in that election. If The Donald is answering the way he is about David Duke, he is either a liar or an idiot! Unless, of course, as in everything that The Donald states, this is a cold, calculated move on his part to send a clear message to all white supremacists, that The Donald wants your vote!

For any of you who have doubts about where David Duke stands, here is a link to a website favorable to the "real" David Duke -- "Dr. Duke" [he has a PhD, you know]. Please note his extensive Republican credentials in this article. Judge for yourself. But don't tell The Donald. He doesn't want to know anything about Dr. Duke!

No votes yet

A leopard can't change his spots.

Since we're discussing the KKK and politicians let's take time to remember that Hillary Clinton called a KKK leader a "friend and mentor".

Senator Robert Byrd not only was in the Ku Klux Klan but he also organized a chapter and recruited membership. He is also on record as having lied about his membership.

How did the Clintons treat him? Did they disavow him? No Hillary called him a friend and mentor. and Bill Clinton euologized him.

Trump disavowed David Duke's endorsement on Feb 26th when he was first asked and repeatedly since and in 2000 stated that Duke and Buchanan's involvement were the reason he left the Reform Party.

Why are the Clinton's not disavowing their connections to the KKK?


of all time for POTUS. Mikey, you can vote for The Donald. I can vote for Hillary. And, then, let's see which one of us is more comfortable with casting our respective ballot.
As far as Robert Byrd is concerned, he was no Harry Truman. He had a choice, just as Harry had a choice. Byrd took the easy road of go along and get along. Harry stood up to the KKK! Hillary and Bill may not denounce Robert Byrd, but I do!

The Donald of 2016 may have a convenient case of amnesia about David Duke, just before a ton of Republican primaries in the South, but I remember David Duke.
The Donald of 2016 may not denounce David Duke, but I do!

Donald did denounce David Duke. Yet you claimed twice he didn't.

You say Hillary is not your favorite yet I don't see a "Hillary supports racists" post but I do see you try to tie Donald to Duke.


Here is a video of Trump disavowing David Duke's endorsment.

So Dale were you ignorant of the facts or lying when you wrote this "The Donald refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of a question about David Duke, who is a former Grand Dragon of the KKK, and who has never denounced his own connections with the KKK, nor condemned their tactics nor their support in his own political campaigns." ??


Yes. The Donald did denounce Duke in the 1990s. Then why did he state clearly on Sunday, February 28th, "Honestly[?], I don’t know David Duke,” Trump told Tapper. “I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” "AND I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM?" What a crock!
Here's a link to the entire article about the veracity, or, rather, the lack thereof, when The Donald politically ducked the David Duke question.
It seems transparently clear that The Donald of the early 1990s has evolved into a new The Donald in 2016. In the 1990s, The Donald clearly and definitively denounced David Duke and all he stood for. The Donald of 2016 has, just as clearly, refused to denounce David Duke, conveniently, just before Republican primaries in the South which will be heavily attended by white voters. Hmmm...

The Donald is just another rich politician who will say anything to get elected. Once again I state that, IMHO, this entire run for POTUS is a game to The Donald. And The Donald always plays to win every game! If he wins, America loses!

Well the video I posted was from Feb 26th. So he had already disavowed him before the 28th.

This is a case of the media asking a question over and over again until they get an answer they can interpret in a controversial way.

And he DID denounce twice David Duke before the Feb 28th interview.


It affirms my belief that whatever happens in the election--PC is clearly dead, or soon will be.

you are blinded by partisanship!
OK...What explains this statement by The Donald on February 28th: "Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump said.
or this one: "I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," he [The Donald] said. "So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
These statements prove -- especially in light of the quotes you posted -- that The Donald is a bald-faced liar.

The Donald would also be the first orange-colored POTUS we ever had, has the weirdest comb-over ever, and looks like a cross between the Michelin Man and Baby Huey!

Again he had ALREADY disavowed him and his endorsement.

Yet Hillart is best friends with Klan organizer! So you would rather vote for someone who is friends with klansmen than Donald Trump.


David Duke was, and what he stood for BEFORE February 28th! Then The Donald lied when he stated on February 28th that, "Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" And The Donald lied again when he said, "I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," he [The Donald] said. "So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
Of course, The Donald knew who David Duke was! The man lies like as easily as he tells the truth. You did the research, Mikey!

What white supremecist group endorsed him? I haven't seen any. Even saying that David Duke endorsed Trump is wrong because Duke has come out and stated he didn't endorse Trump. Duke said he would vote for him but he did not endorse him. So with that in context Trump's words make total sense.


defending The Donald. In what universe does the statement on February 28, 2016, " I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" NOT constitute a lie?

As far as endorsements go, David Duke stated on his radio program, "voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage.” Now, that might not seem like an endorsement to you on whatever planet you call home, but, here on earth it sure sounds like an endorsement to me!

As far as The Donald being close with white supremacist groups is concerned, I do not pore over all of the information and misinformation spewing from The Donald's publicity machine, but others do. Those others have found the source for several of the materials issued by The Donald's campaign to be exactly the same as those which appear on websites and/or in publications of white supremacist groups! Hmmm...

And, just today, Willard called The Donald, "a phony" and a "fraud." Previously Willard, "...warned Republicans that Trump is a fake, a misogynist and dangerous."
But you go ahead and defend the indefensible, Mikey. This edifies us about you!

Here's what Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, had to say about the situation, "When I see something that runs counter to who we are as a party and as a country, I will speak up, so today I want to be very clear about something. If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games,” Ryan said. “They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals…. This is fundamental. And if someone wants to be our nominee, they must understand this.”
Apparently, Paul Ryan believes that The Donald is being evasive and playing games with the David Duke endorsement. Why don't you, Mikey?

Here's a link to the entire article:
As the writer of the article states, it was very clear about whom Speaker Ryan speaking. And you can read The Donald's threat to Speaker Ryan which is in the same article.
Yeah, The Donald would make a great POTUS, all righty!

Why does Paul Ryan feel the way he does? Why don't you look at his comments and deduce it for yourself instead of asking me. What is clear is the GOP establishment is in a full panic because Trump will likely be the nominee. I'm not a Trump supporter but I'm not in a panic.

And it's clear Trump disavowed Duke's endorsement. It's clear he does not condone of David Duke. Why do you continue to lie about Trump?

Why are you excusing Hillary for supporting a Klan leader?


of the countries in the world which are better places in which to live than the United States. I am also curious as to where you might be moving if you believe, like the Republican candidates for POTUS do, that The United States is such a bad place to live.
And, if the United States is such a bad place in which to live, why do we need a wall to keep people out?
Just to reiterate, I love America. I'm staying right here!

Antarctica. No government there to take my freedom.


Even their summers are cold down there, Mikey. Packing your long johns your parka, and your warm woollies?
Government is the price we pay for civilization. If you want no civilization, I guess you don't need a government.

official governance in Antarctica. And there is no permanent population. (No military allowed, BTW.) Here's a link to an article about Antarctic governance, Mikey:
Not only is there governance, but the governance is done under a treaty that has been in effect for over half a century with no major problems between and among the many signatories to the treaty.
Freedom for you may mean taking some freedom away from others. Cooperation is the way to go. We share what we now know is a very small planet. If we do not do more cooperating, similar to the way the signatories have cooperated in Antarctica, for the betterment of the whole, we are doomed to continue wasting valuable and limited resources fighting among ourselves. What a waste!

Sorry, Mikey. The world is too complex for there to be no government. I guess you'll just have to find a wilderness where nobody wants to bother you. Otherwise, you'll just have to learn to put up with gregarious people like me!

Dale, why do you insist on providing facts to MikeyA? You must remember. When it comes to MikyA's agenda, If the facts don't fit, you must forget.

who read here. Many never post a thing! Factual evidence is accepted by those who are neither too ideological, nor too partisan.

Apparently you missed my joke of an answer to your joke of a question.


spewing from the lips of all of the Republican candidates for POTUS, especially The Donald. If you really believe that America is such a bad place in which to live, name a better place!

Personally, I love America. With all of America's faults, it is still the greatest nation in the history of the world. And it's the only place in which I want to live!

World Domination

Cruze the Liar!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I once heard a Republican say that we need a kinder, gentler America. What happen to that concept? I quess it disappeared with the thousand points of light.

All those politicians are liars .The only one that isn't is Bernie.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

Haven't heard him lie yet!

Here's a direct quote which really gets to the heart of the situation with The Donald. As I've stated myself, The Donald appeals to the worst emotions within us.
But back to Willard: “Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics,” Romney said. “He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.” I couldn't have said it better, myself! (ZC -- Gotta love it. Right?)

WHEW! This is a LONG WAY from the use of Ronald Reagan's 11th Amendment: "That’s why Ronald Reagan invented the 'Eleventh Commandment.' He spelled it out for reporters. When they came to him with sharp criticisms from other Republicans, Reagan would genially wave them off with this explanatory note: 'Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.' That’s what he always said." Here's a link to the entire article:

Love it!

The latest petulant argument between The Donald and his detractors is over the BBB rating for "Trump University." This was neither a traditional "brick and mortar" place, not was it a typical "on-line" website. It was a series of seminars which The Donald just had to label with his name connected to the education-related title of university. This is so typical of a classic narcissist!
Anyway, when Rubio stated that Trump University had a D- rating from the BBB, he was accurately quoting the LATEST posted rating. When The Donald stated that the rating was an "A," as so often happens with The Donald, this man who always fallaciously claims to be the smartest person ever, conveniently forgets to mention that the "A" rating is an old one which came before all of the complaints to the BBB -- along with many, many lawsuits, including a class-action lawsuit filed by thousands of upset former "students" of the self-proclaimed "Trump University." The most recent rating is, as Rubio stated -- D-!
Rubio was wrong about one thing, The Donald did NOT select the instructors for this so-called "university." As in so many cases with this classic narcissist, he put his name on something, had little or nothing to do with it, but claims that it was an overwhelming success, even in light of hard evidence that it may well be fraudulent. The Donald then claimed that the rating was "elevated" to an A. The self-proclaimed smartest man ever got it backward. The rating plummeted to a D-.
The Donald never allows facts to get in the way of his self-centered, self-promotion. As Willard put it so well, The Donald is a "phony" and a "fraud."
Here's a link to the article:

support!" OK, so he didn't state that in words. He's just skipping -- and at the very last minute I might add -- a very important conservative conference. And you wonder why I claim that The Donald sees this entire campaign for POTUS as just a game?
Here's a link to the story:

Could it be that The Donald is getting frightened that he might actually win this thing and have to govern? Is The Donald purposely trying to anger what would be natural supporters in both primaries and caucuses and in a general election to sabotage his own campaign? What if The Donald was doing all of this just to get more publicity for his future projects, including future television shows, and never thought he really had a chance to win, until very recently?
Remember when Ross Perot inexplicably "dropped out" of the race for POTUS in 1992, when he was polling about as well as GHW and Bill? Then, Ross got back in and claimed that GHW's campaign threatened to ruin Ross's daughter's wedding if Ross didn't drop out. I stated at the time that Ross appeared to be afraid he might really win that election.
Governing the greatest nation in the history of the world can be a frightening prospect. It's so much easier to be on the outside, calling those in power a bunch of idiots!

the highest rollers among the big-time gamblers. When asked about Robert LiButti, The Donald stated, “During the years I very successfully ran the casino business, I knew many high rollers. I assume Mr. LiButti was one of them, but I don’t recognize the name."
Here's what was stated in the story about The Donald and his relationship to Robert LiButti by LiButti's daughter: "But Edith Creamer, LiButti’s daughter, told Yahoo News in two recent telephone interviews that Trump’s account was false and that Trump and her father knew each other quite well. 'He’s a liar,' said Creamer. 'Of course he knew him. I flew in the [Trump] helicopter with [Trump’s then wife] Ivana and the kids. My dad flew it up and down [to Atlantic City]. My 35th birthday party was at the Plaza and Donald was there. After the party, we went on his boat, his big yacht. I like Trump, but it pisses me off that he denies knowing my father. That hurts me.'”
Here's a link to the entire story:

Now, it really doesn't bother me that The Donald was friendly with a high roller who also had ties to nefarious characters. I was in business with my father for 15 years. We had at least one judge as a customer, and at least one former local mob member. When you're in business, you are slow to discourage paying customers.
It's The Donald's selective memory that disturbs me. He lies as easily as he tells the truth. Either he knew LiButti "quite well," or he is NOT the smartest person he knows, nor does he have the greatest memory in the history of the world as he would have us believe.
In short, I am not the only one to question The Donald's veracity. Others who know The Donald personally, say, "He's a liar." And The Donald has the nerve to label Cruz as "Ted the liar?"

based upon the American public's dislike of Obama. Well, this might not be the best strategy. Here is the latest Gallup poll:
Now, before anyone decides to deride these results by citing how much more popular other POTUSes have been, read the full story. As it points out: Obama's approval is now at 50%. That's not great, and is far behind Bill Clinton's approval rating at this point in his Presidency, which was at 63%. However, W's rating at this same point in his Presidency was only 32%. And the conservative saint, Ronald Reagan, had an approval rating that was almost exactly the same as Obama, at 51%, at the same point in his Presidency.

Now, I listened to The Donald today. He talked about how only he, among all Republicans, can attract Democratic voters in record numbers to his candidacy. He fails to point out how many Republicans will never vote for him. He also fails to acknowledge how his extreme negative comments have motivated minorities, especially Hispanics and Muslims, to register and vote in record numbers AGAINST The Donald! The Donald even spoke specifically about winning in Michigan. Has he no idea how many Muslims live in Michigan? And, the gender gap is growing. As I predicted, the longer the campaign goes on, the more the majority of women understand that their interests will not be well served by electing as POTUS a man who throws a wife away as soon as she starts looking too old, and/or shows enough of a backbone to stand up to him. (Careful, Melania! You turn 46 next month. And if The Donald does not win the race for POTUS, he won't need to show the public what a beautiful young family he currently has.)

Finally, it is fascinating to me that, if current trends continue, Hillary will not be the oldest candidate for POTUS in the General Election. Don't misunderstand me here. Hillary is far from young. She recently turned 68. But The Donald is older. He will be 70 in June. And the oldest of the current three most likely candidates for POTUS, generally gets the most support from the youngest voters -- Bernie! He would turn 75 before the November election!

to be affected too much by my "gut feelings." I will link you to an article showing exactly what I stated in the above post: "Now, I listened to The Donald today. He talked about how only he, among all Republicans, can attract Democratic voters in record numbers to his candidacy. He fails to point out how many Republicans will never vote for him. He also fails to acknowledge how his extreme negative comments have motivated minorities, especially Hispanics and Muslims, to register and vote in record numbers AGAINST The Donald!"
Actual figures from the coming Ohio Primary Election support my opinion. As the article states: "Through Friday, Franklin County had about 39,000 requests for absentee ballots, and roughly 17,000 came from voters changing their party registration, according to statistics compiled by elections board data wizard Carolyn Gorup. Most of the tide represents unaffiliated voters requesting a partisan ballot. About 5,700 of those so-called independents wanted to vote in the Republican primary while almost 10,000 asked for a Democratic ballot."
Yes, a few hundred more Democrats have applied for Republican ballots than have Democrats applied for Republican ballots. But, thousands more Independents have applied for Democratic affiliation, than they have Republican affiliation. In simple terms, while The Donald does attract some Democratic votes, he motivates many more people to vote AGAINST The Donald!
Here's the link to the entire article:

I watched the Republican debate last night and frankly it was boring compared to previous debates. I welcome this debate instead of the back biting and cynical atmosphere of previous debates. I knew that the Donald would quickly go back to his real personality today. He didn't disappoint me. Again, Trump has taken strategy from the Nazi playbook. Hitler tried to position himself as a man who was peaceful in order to get democratically elected and then once elected proceeded to dismantle the democracy. Trump is on the same path. It worked for Hitler and it appears that Trump thinks it will work for him. When Trump says we will make America great again, he's saying to those people who feel entitled that they will receive all the rights and everybody else might get some crumbs. A message to my friend MikeyA. A lot of people in Nazi Germany who thought themselves entitled never dreamed they were going to spend their last moments on this earth in a gas chamber.

Trump had to cancel a rally in Chicago and now people in Dayton have rose up in protest of Trump's insane campaign. America is waking up.

protester. Sure! The Donald probably wanted to run away. But, he's so old that he probably just couldn't run! Who knows? We can't tell when he is lying and when he is telling the truth!

Last night at a Trump rally in Kansas City. Trump declared that protestors should be arrested because they violated his right to free speech. Trump behaves the same way. So, should he be arrested? Or maybe he should be arrested for inciting riots with his inflammatory rhetoric.

LOL you libs. Inciting riots? Trump couldn't even speak the night a riot broke out so how did he incite it with just his presence?

Not being a Trump supporter I have been able to sit back and enjoy watching him drive you all crazy. If he wins and he probably will if Hillary is the nominee, these next four years will be me with a bucket of popcorn and a huge smile just watching you continue to lose your mind.


once again, quote from an article using some of their exact words: "Rubio on Friday pointed out to reporters that there isn’t violence at his campaign rallies nor are there any incidents for Cruz, Kasich and Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 'There is only one candidate that has violence at his events. I think potentially some of the rhetoric he has used contributed to this environment and it’s disturbing,' Rubio added." And Cruz stated, “The candidate [The Donald, of course] urges violence to punch people in the face. This is not going to be the last incident...this is not how our politics should occur.” BTW -- Of course, Cruz was correct. There -- indeed -- has been more violence at sites of rallies for The Donald after this one. And more could be in the offing.
Now, Mikey, you may think that violence in the political process is something to enjoy, "with a bucket of popcorn and a huge smile ..." I don't. And neither do those "libs" Cruz and Rubio. (This label would really come as a shock to both of them!)

Mikey, you are correct that, at least in many if not all states, inciting a riot must be done with "intent." I don't think that proximity to the "riot" is a necessary component, however. Proving intent from one's words could be very hard, but violent talk can lead to others doing violent actions! Just ask those "libs" Cruz and Rubio!

3 replies to my one post.

Point = Proven



Apparently, Mikey:
You believe that Cruz and Rubio are "libs."
And you believe that it's ok to break the law if you call yourself a conservative.

were real sticklers for "law and order." Guess, in your case at least, it just depends upon who is breaking the law.

It all depends upon who is breaking the law. The Donald is "looking into" paying for the legal defense of that "brave" man who sucker-punched a protester being led out of a rally for The Donald.
Here's what The Donald stated just his morning, "Trump tells NBC's 'Meet the Press' that [John Franklin] McGraw 'got carried away' and 'maybe he doesn't like seeing what's happening to the country.' Trump was asked if it's possible he could help McGraw with legal fees, if McGraw needed it. Trump says: 'I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.'"

Gotta LOVE those good conservative values you share with The Donald. Law and order all the way!
Do you share his family values, too? Which wife is he on now? Number 3 and counting? Who knows? He may be looking for his 4th. Melania will turn 46 soon! He's already a little behind in his pattern. Ivana was about 43 when their divorce became final. Of course, The Donald, good family man that he is, was having as affair with Marla Maples, future wife #2 already. And Marla was only 36 when The Donald dumped her for good!

Trump and his supporters don't think they are breaking the law. Trump said today that it's Bernie Sander's fault there is violence at Trump rallies, because Sanders is sending protestors to Trump rallies to stir up the crowds. The chickens are coming home to roost. A complete Trump meltdown is inevitable.

In the 1960's Stokley Carmacial showed up at a rally and never spoke a word. He was charged with inciting a riot.

suggest that the rally there be canceled! Here's a link to the story:

Here's specifically what was stated in the story: "While Trump claimed that the decision to cancel the event was based the recommendation of local law enforcement, the Chicago Police told a different story. 'The Chicago Police Department had no role,' Chicago Police Interim Supt. John Escalante told reporters outside the UIC Pavilion late Friday night. 'In fact, I can tell you we did assure the Trump campaign that we had more than adequate resources outside the UIC Pavilion and that we guaranteed them we could provide safe access and exit for Mr. Trump.'”

As I have stated before, The Donald lies as easily as he tells the truth. So, how can anyone know the difference? How can anyone believe anything the man says?

Here's a link to the article:

Here's the direct quote from Bernie, "In a statement issued later Saturday, Sanders added: 'As is the case virtually every day, Donald Trump is showing the American people that he is a pathological liar.'"

It appears that lies are Trumps Standard Operating Procedure. The truth is exposed by the fact checkers..

Here's a link to an article with statistics to this effect:

I have consistently stated that the longer the campaign goes on, if The Donald continues to disparage various groups, the wider these types of gaps will grow. We know that Obama and the Democrats in general, tend to attract a higher percentage of female voters, while Republicans appeal to a higher percentage of male voters. But, as the gender gap widens among female voters, the male differential seems less significant. Remember, The Donald has alienated a lot of men who happen to be African-American, Hispanic, and/or Muslim.
Is The Donald going to change his strategy? There has been no evidence that this will happen. He loves the attention. He loves the boisterousness of the crowds. He loves the passion his followers exhibit.
The Donald appears to be an attention junky to me. He just can't get enough! The Donald exhibits all or the signs of a classic narcissist.

You don't need a degree in mental health to see this man is sick beyond belief.

that The Donald's appeal would not be limited to the numbers he was attracting when there were 17 Republican candidates for POTUS. Here's an article speaking directly to that point: Please note the source...Rachel Maddow from MSNBC. This is not exactly a pro-Republican nor is it a pro-The Donald source. But the article is right on the nose!

Some so-called pundits tried to say months ago that The Donald was only getting 25%-30% of the Republican vote. They strongly implied that The Donald could never attract votes from the followers of other Republicans, not to mention attracting the votes of traditional Democratic voters. Such people I call educated idiots!
IMHO -- No Presidential candidate has ever understood the media better than The Donald! He will continue to get a LOT of attention. He will continue to get the lion's share of the votes in Republican primaries and caucuses. With the 2016 rules skewed toward many winner-take-all, and/or winner-take-most primary elections, do not be surprised to see The Donald widen his margin, maybe even corralling an actual majority of the delegates before the Republican convention meets. If not, it would seem that The Donald will have such an overwhelming plurality of delegates that denying him the nomination may well do long-term harm to the National Republican Party.

After decades of spewing anti-government rhetoric, blaming the federal government for everything that is wrong with America, the only thing that should really surprise national Republican leaders is that The Donald or some other demagogue did not run this type of POTUS campaign in 2008 or 2012! As the King James version of the bible states in Galatians 6:7, "Be not deceived; G-d is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Reap away, Republicans!

legal of not. Here's the research:

I wonder if all of these immigrants commit all of their rapes and murders before or after work?

Trump should do the exact same thing the other said does. He should use paid agitators like they do. But, he's way to Presidential for stunts like that.

He doesn't need paid agitators. His runaway lies and misrepresentations have been enough to make him look sooooo Presidential. Or, maybe he should hire street vendors to sell Trump steaks and Trump wine at other candidate rallies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.