[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[cr47t]

Calm your s***. As for HRC...uh she did do it. 2014, declared -700k and we've known for ages.

This is bigger and Trump has been hiding it for a long while. He's not denying that he avoided the taxes -- Christie and Giuliani actually called it genius that he avoided his taxes for 18 years. While it's technically legal, it isn't really fair. to the working people.

 

But while Trump's tax avoidance is quite a scandal (but not much of a shock), the real scandal is that this kind of thing is legal in the first place -- it shows how billionaires have been able to game the system.

 

Y'all need to stop and realize this entire election is full of s*** honestly.

I get how you feel.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is bigger and Trump has been hiding it for a long while. He's not denying that he avoided the taxes -- Christie and Giuliani actually called it genius that he avoided his taxes for 18 years. While it's technically legal, it isn't really fair. to the working people.

 

But while Trump's tax avoidance is quite a scandal (but not much of a shock), the real scandal is that this kind of thing is legal in the first place -- it shows how billionaires have been able to game the system.

 

I get how you feel.

He's not been hiding it lol, everything the NYT put out yesterday is in his 1997 book Art of the Comeback

 

He openly admits that he lost nearly a billion dollars then

[cr47t]

He's not been hiding it lol, everything the NYT put out yesterday is in his 1997 book Art of the Comeback

 

He openly admits that he lost nearly a billion dollars then

I'm talking about the not paying taxes for 18 or so years, not the admitting that he lost nearly a billion dollars.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm talking about the not paying taxes for 18 or so years, not the admitting that he lost nearly a billion dollars.

Then you need to read the NYT piece, it says he /could/ get away with not paying Taxes, not that the did

 

And again, he has admitted to using his company to pay lower taxes as well on the campaign trail numerous time, it's part of his "under-budget, ahead-of-schedule, I'll be your crook now" warm up routine

 

There's quite literally nothing in that piece that should be shocking 

 

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

 

Wikileaks is putting a lot on the line if they're lying about this aren't they. Anyway Assange isn't gonna give an address from his balcony due to death threats, but he's giving a televised speech all the same to expose HRC and leaks still income on wednesday

[Dad]

Now you're flip flopping. "I don't care who does it, it's clever. " Bullshit.

 

And Trump didn't leak his returns. Some cocky jabroni from his past did. I dunno who she is ( I need to find the article) but she's admitted to being up to no good and leaking his sheet. Marla Maples was her name.

 

And you're not a small time donor. You may have given a small donation but you're not a small time donor. Don't group yourself with people like me.

 

Its cute how you're so quick to defend Don the Con admitting to his fault and say how clever it is. Every other successful business man would say losing a billion dollars making it back and losing it again makes you a moron. But it's okay because you want so much more for this country.

 

You cant make America great again by shoveling in temporary construction jobs and maybe acting on tariffs on China. You can't run a business losing money to maybe make it back later. You can't expect a profit when the sheet you're spewing is unrefined.

 

You can't make America great again with sex tapes, ass backwards policies, and a lack of common knowledge for 20% of your voter base. You can't even say he's a smart con man because you want indictments for Killary making money.

 

She clearly knows how to manipulate the system, being the sneaky jabroni she is. But suddenly I'm reaching because "Trump admitted to it"? Its no wonder he lost major investors. It makes me wonder how stupid your candidate really is.

[Phantom Roxas]

Trump quite literally admitted to everything the NYT "leaked" today in his 1997 book Art of the Comeback....y'all slow af

 

Except when called on it throughout this election, he's been evasive. As cr47t pointed out, we're talking about something else. You have a habit of talking about at least two different things at once, so when we respond to only one of those points, you instead completely ignore it and respond as though we spoke about a different point. If you didn't change the subject all the time, you would actually know what we're talking about.

 

None of this is about us supposedly being slow. Why has Trump been so afraid to release his tax returns? And if he did "leak" his tax returns now, wouldn't that mean he caved into pressure from Clinton?

 

Trump repeatedly insults Clinton by calling her "Crooked Hillary", so his "I'll be your crook" line just sounds like he's willing to be exactly what he criticizes Clinton for, and the only reason he seems to have for why it's meant to be okay when he does it is nothing more than he's the one doing it. He's just a hypocrite.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except when called on it throughout this election, he's been evasive. As cr47t pointed out, we're talking about something else. You have a habit of talking about at least two different things at once, so when we respond to only one of those points, you instead completely ignore it and respond as though we spoke about a different point. If you didn't change the subject all the time, you would actually know what we're talking about.

 

None of this is about us supposedly being slow. Why has Trump been so afraid to release his tax returns? And if he did "leak" his tax returns now, wouldn't that mean he caved into pressure from Clinton?

 

Trump repeatedly insults Clinton by calling her "Crooked Hillary", so his "I'll be your crook" line just sounds like he's willing to be exactly what he criticizes Clinton for, and the only reason he seems to have for why it's meant to be okay when he does it is nothing more than he's the one doing it. He's just a hypocrite.

He's not really been elusive, he's admitted many time that 1) People like him make too much money 2) That he's used the system to it's fullest extant to his benefit. Has he expressly said, I've filed for negative income to not pay taxes for the next 19 years? Not that I can recall. But he has admitted to using every loophole to his advantage

 

Don't take slow offensively, slow in that context was supposed to mean, the information has been out there for nearly 19 years, and you guys are only now learning about it. 

 

Not quite, they're on opposite sides of the equation, Trump is the buyer of services, Clinton was the provider. Trump bought services from the government to benefit him, Clinton sold services from the Government to benefit her. Trump's logic, which you can question, is: I extracted favors from the Gov, allow me to game the system to help you guys now

 

Edit: Forgot to address that HRC got him to leak the returns part. Maybe, but the Miss Universe scandal was a nightmare that he needed to move on from. He did something similar before too with leaking his publicity tapes which occupied a whole 3 news cycles and took attention away from the Cruz sheet in may iirc, or maybe it was the Judge...either way, he's had a history of leaking headline worthy, but non issue material to detract away from his scandals before...and he did it again. Now he'll play up faux outrage painting himself as a victim, but subsequently undermining an already non-story

[cr47t]

He's not really been elusive, he's admitted many time that 1) People like him make too much money 2) That he's used the system to it's fullest extant to his benefit. Has he expressly said, I've filed for negative income to not pay taxes for the next 19 years? Not that I can recall. But he has admitted to using every loophole to his advantage

 

Don't take slow offensively, slow in that context was supposed to mean, the information has been out there for nearly 19 years, and you guys are only now learning about it. 

 

Not quite, they're on opposite sides of the equation, Trump is the buyer of services, Clinton was the provider. Trump bought services from the government to benefit him, Clinton sold services from the Government to benefit her. Trump's logic, which you can question, is: I extracted favors from the Gov, allow me to game the system to help you guys now

But are you really sure a person who's gamed the system for himself for the past whatever-the-number-is years is suddenly going to turn around and help people like you, who he's spent his years stiffing? I mean if he did make a full reversal that would be great but I doubt he will or would want to.

 

My point is, his track record is one of stiffing others for his won benefit and leaving others in the dirt.

 

Yeah, the other candidates aren't that much better, I get it. But the fact that you are;

1. trusting Trump to handle the nuclear codes responsibly when it's really doubtful that he will (he is unpredictable and takes pride in it after all)
2. trusting him to handle the economy for working people when he's only done really much of anything for his own benefit
3. supporting a candidate who has shown no respect for anyone who's not himself
4. supporting a candidate who has revenge as one of his core themes (two wrongs don't make a right)
5. trusting Trump to deliver on what is just another of his empty, unrealistically superlative promises
6. seriosuly considering at least some of these to be good attributes about him
7. I could go on and on but don't want to waste your time

makes me wonder how you can be behind him, even if Hillary is bad too.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Now you're flip flopping. "I don't care who does it, it's clever. " Bullshit.

 

And Trump didn't leak his returns. Some cocky jabroni from his past did. I dunno who she is ( I need to find the article) but she's admitted to being up to no good and leaking his sheet. Marla Maples was her name.

 

And you're not a small time donor. You may have given a small donation but you're not a small time donor. Don't group yourself with people like me.

 

Its cute how you're so quick to defend Don the Con admitting to his fault and say how clever it is. Every other successful business man would say losing a billion dollars making it back and losing it again makes you a moron. But it's okay because you want so much more for this country.

 

You cant make America great again by shoveling in temporary construction jobs and maybe acting on tariffs on China. You can't run a business losing money to maybe make it back later. You can't expect a profit when the sheet you're spewing is unrefined.

 

You can't make America great again with sex tapes, ass backwards policies, and a lack of common knowledge for 20% of your voter base. You can't even say he's a smart con man because you want indictments for Killary making money.

 

She clearly knows how to manipulate the system, being the sneaky jabroni she is. But suddenly I'm reaching because "Trump admitted to it"? Its no wonder he lost major investors. It makes me wonder how stupid your candidate really is.

I'm not flip flopping, I file income taxes too, I use every loophole I can to pay less. I won't fault HRC for declaring negative income and pushing her money through her foundation in 2014 because anyone with half a brain who has the capacity to do so, should do so. 

 

You're attempting to conflate my critique of her using her foundation not to do charity, but to launder money to politics and my critique of her appealing mismanagement of the Haitian relief fund with me attacking how she worked around her income taxes. Hell the NYT and Washington Post's owner did something similar with - income. We all know how to do it, just most of us don't make enough money for it to be significant

 

Marla, his second wife? I saw that daily beast piece hypothesizing that she did it, because the only two people who would have access to it would be him and her...but why leak it to the NYT instead of just hiring a publicist. Maybe she did, but there's no definitive proof 

 

That's not fair Dad, and you know it. I'm not my parents, I haven't taken a penny from them nor do I intend to. What money they make is theirs and non of my business. If anything my Dad giving thousands to Priorities USA Action should upset you, but I doubt it will because he's supporting your candidate. I cut off 60$ in every weekly pay-check I get and give it to the Trump campaign, or try to every week. I just recently crossed the 2700 max contribution I can give to him directly. I am the definition of a small donor 

 

Too short sighted there, those jobs are gone realistically. But we have people in our parent's gen and maybe even grandparent's gen who only know how to do those jobs. The idea of a sugar rush keynesian model like Trump's is to ease the transition and put enough money in those people's pocket while training the next generation (ours and our children) in new occupations. It will make America great for those people to whom America isn't great for ATM

 

No, want indictment for HRC for Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, gross negligence of classified material, and federal racketeering. Now you can say the clinton foundation made money off the last one, but I'm more concerned that relief money vanished and people started getting federal offices than where the money went to exactly. Nice soundbite though bringing up a sex tape that even the media doesn't care about anymore.

 

He never had wallstreet donors to lose haha

[Dad]

As far as services go, why was Trump doing business with an organization linked to terrorism?

 

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/03/20280/trump-s-organization-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terrorism

 

https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/09/trumps-organization-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terrorism?utm_content=buffered964&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Or is this another case of "oh well Trump did it, so don't worry about it"?

 

Oh and "supporting Clinton"? Really? Just because I hate her less doesn't mean I'm willing to put her in the white house. Stop asumming sheet.

 

Your old man is every bit of a thief she is for donating to her. You can both go to your rooms and think about what you've done.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But are you really sure a person who's gamed the system for himself for the past whatever-the-number-is years is suddenly going to turn around and help people like you, who he's spent his years stiffing? I mean if he did make a full reversal that would be great but I doubt he will or would want to.

 

My point is, his track record is one of stiffing others for his won benefit and leaving others in the dirt.

 

Yeah, the other candidates aren't that much better, I get it. But the fact that you are;

1. trusting Trump to handle the nuclear codes responsibly when it's really doubtful that he will (he is unpredictable and takes pride in it after all)
2. trusting him to handle the economy for working people when he's only done really much of anything for his own benefit
3. supporting a candidate who has shown no respect for anyone who's not himself
4. supporting a candidate who has revenge as one of his core themes (two wrongs don't make a right)
5. trusting Trump to deliver on what is just another of his empty, unrealistically superlative promises
6. seriosuly considering at least some of these to be good attributes about him
7. I could go on and on but don't want to waste your time

makes me wonder how you can be behind him, even if Hillary is bad too.

1) Hillary apparently wanted to do drone strikes on people who irritate her politically and has had a history of being pro-war, you can argue I don't know what Trump will do in the WH, but I do know what HRC will do based on her history. Those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks, and HRC should really look back at her words threatening war with Russia as recent as last month

 

2) Benefit it the key, he knows how to extract services, which makes him fundamentally different than someone who has only excelled at laundering them once getting office

 

3) This is false Hyperbole

 

4) Revenge? Well economically I'm up for it, we're been maligned far too often by countries like China and Mexico. If Trump wants carry forward his aggressive business style with those countries who are robbing us blind, I'm down for it. You're going to have to elaborate what you mean by revenge, because I doubt that was what you mean in entirety 

 

5) I think I've spent most of this thread explaining why the vast majority of Trump's policies make economically sound sense, so this has already been answered in that I question the premise

 

6) Because I would like someone who stands up for himself to stand up for the country he represents. And we kinda do need an alpha personality in the White House after nearly 20 years of betas

 

Hillary is not "bad too" she's worse. That's the key

 

 

As far as services go, why was Trump doing business with an organization linked to terrorism?

 

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/03/20280/trump-s-organization-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terrorism

 

https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/09/trumps-organization-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terrorism?utm_content=buffered964&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Or is this another case of "oh well Trump did it, so don't worry about it"?

Not really, so are we claiming he accepted rent from them as they resided in a building? Sure I guess, you can fault Trump for accepting a couple thousand dollars from them living in his building. Because let's be honest, if they were living ANYWHERE ELSE, Iran's path to a nuclear weapon wouldn't exist. The mystic energy from Trump tower is what thought them about Uranium enrichment. Totally.

 

Also, you might wanna mention that GM was the one doing renting the sections of the building to the Iranian bank, Trump merely acquired the building from GM. The terms of service between GM and Bank Melli still applied. 

 

 

So to be accurate, GM was potentially doing business with an organization linked to terrorism, and then Trump bought that part of GM over, and Bank Melli stayed out it's lease.

 

Why the sudden interest in Iran though, you never showed the slightest interest when I was talking about the Obama Admin's cash influx to Bank Melli a few weeks back? I'm glad you're objectively writing letters to our dear president lambasting him for funding terrorists too, I trust?

 

 

Your old man is every bit of a thief she is for donating to her. You can both go to your rooms and think about what you've done.

My father is a "thief" and you can be damn sure he declares a negative income a ton after shifting his money around. I pay my taxes and I'm proud that I did my small share to help Mr. Trump. I can go to my room and reflect in pride. 

[Dad]

So he wasn't involved because a third party in a business he owned was operating on his behalf?

 

Is it April 1st again? If he acquired the building, it's his deal and his problem. He didn't have an issue owning up to it before. Man up and stop trying to dodge.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So he wasn't involved because a third party in a business he owned was operating on his behalf?

 

Is it April 1st again? If he acquired the building, it's his deal and his problem. He didn't have an issue owning up to it before. Man up and stop trying to dodge.

Not that simple, look up the terms of transfer between GM and the Trump organization, it would be a legal nightmare to terminate the contract between GM and Bank Melli

 

It's like this, you're renting a house. The owner sells rights to a new guy halfway through your rent, the new owner would have to jump through a lot of hoops to evict you before the contract ends.

 

So yes, you can fault Trump for not going through every single one of the tenants GM set up and evicting them. I will concede that to you

[cr47t]

1) Hillary apparently wanted to do drone strikes on people who irritate her politically and has had a history of being pro-war, you can argue I don't know what Trump will do in the WH, but I do know what HRC will do based on her history. Those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks, and HRC should really look back at her words threatening war with Russia as recent as last month

 

2) Benefit it the key, he knows how to extract services, which makes him fundamentally different than someone who has only excelled at laundering them once getting office

 

3) This is false Hyperbole

 

4) Revenge? Well economically I'm up for it, we're been maligned far too often by countries like China and Mexico. If Trump wants carry forward his aggressive business style with those countries who are robbing us blind, I'm down for it. You're going to have to elaborate what you mean by revenge, because I doubt that was what you mean in entirety 

 

5) I think I've spent most of this thread explaining why the vast majority of Trump's policies make economically sound sense, so this has already been answered in that I question the premise

 

6) Because I would like someone who stands up for himself to stand up for the country he represents. And we kinda do need an alpha personality in the White House after nearly 20 years of betas

 

Hillary is not "bad too" she's worse. That's the key

• We don't know if this is quite true (the drone strike thing). Granted WikiLeaks has been consistent but I don't know if they're continuing that -- this seems too far-fetched, even for her.
• Uh, no comment because I'm not a master economist
• Was referring to when running his business. ex. he was found guilty (along w/ his dad) and fined for discriminating against coloreds in business (and to this day he denies it ever happened)
• More like unneccesary retaliation, often against innocents. ex. Deporting ALL illegal immigrants for faults that only some of them do, exterminating entire families related to one terrorist even if the rest of the family has no terrorist links. (The terrorists do need to be dealt with; just not the innocents.)
• Again, I'm not a master economist and I doubt anyone in this thread is. If you could sum it up or find a piece that sums it up I would probably understand your point better.
• However, we don't need a bully. And that's what Trump is; a bully. Just look at how he's run his business, how he's run his campaign.

And if you could bring up your reasoning for why Hillary is worse go ahead. It's better for the discussion than just saying it without any backup.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

• We don't know if this is quite true (the drone strike thing). Granted WikiLeaks has been consistent but I don't know if they're continuing that -- this seems too far-fetched, even for her.
• Uh, no comment because I'm not a master economist
• Was referring to when running his business. ex. he was found guilty (along w/ his dad) and fined for discriminating against coloreds in business (and to this day he denies it ever happened)
• More like unneccesary retaliation, often against innocents. ex. Deporting ALL illegal immigrants for faults that only some of them do, exterminating entire families related to one terrorist even if the rest of the family has no terrorist links. (The terrorists do need to be dealt with; just not the innocents.)
• Again, I'm not a master economist and I doubt anyone in this thread is. If you could sum it up or find a piece that sums it up I would probably understand your point better.
• However, we don't need a bully. And that's what Trump is; a bully. Just look at how he's run his business, how he's run his campaign.

And if you could bring up your reasoning for why Hillary is worse go ahead. It's better for the discussion than just saying it without any backup.

 

1) Uh well, here's another tidbit that makes the claim wikileaks it putting out not so outrageous

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782965252900188160

 

Democratic Strategist calling for Assange's assassination. Her threatening war with Russia over suspicion of them being involved in Wikileaks is on video, so good luck denying that part

 

2) Um well, briefly the devaluing the dollar will allow us to export more and boost up the US manufacturing. Lowering cost for businesses coupled with an increase in capital will result in more hiring of workers. Things like the wall are government deficit spending that will exhibit the multiplier effect with respect to putting money in people's wallets, but is also a positive externality in that it has other societal benefits

 

3) He addressed this actually, DoJ hit thousands of businesses with those lawsuits, it was an ad hoc barrage almost. What people won't mention is that they also "discriminated" against poor whites with low credit ratings. So if you wanna attack Trump there you can say he was going after people who were poor and without good ratings. That's a more solidly factual claim than Trump wanted to keep em ni****s out

 

4) As he has progressed through the race, he has moderated and become far more realistic, he said he will not pledge to deporting the ~9 million non-violent illegals at this time, his focus is more on 1) the 2 mill violent illegals 2) building a wall (and other measures) so more don't keep coming, thus ending the problem

 

Haven't you seen the videos of ISIS widows making their children watch their father's suicide bombings and indoctrinating them to follow in footsteps? Please defend those widows. 

 

5) We need an aggressive leader who will use every advantage to benefit American, and a bully might be needed, we can make Mexico legally pay for the wall, I've pointed out how many times, and recently the Mexico's old foreign minister pointed out how too. We do need to carry a big stick because America is done being kicked around

 

Cr...I think I've done a fair bit of pointing out how HRC outdoes most of Trump's "crimes" that's what I've been doing for a good portion of this thread after I realized how stupid I was to be supporting her in the start

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-26/trump-advisers-detail-how-economic-plan-would-boost-revenue

 

It's Trump's advisers, but Boomberg is a pretty good source, they can explain it a better than I can 

 

@Brightfire

 

You were asking a few days ago how Trump could report a negative income, but not have lost any money at all I think. I tired to explain it, but this might do better

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-trumps-big-tax-loss-may-not-have-been-a-cash-loss-at-all-2016-10-03

 

---Off to class, I'll have my phone but can't really respond well on it, so if I'm on this thread, but ain't responding, don't sheet a brick

[Aerion Brightflame]

This isn't really an important post, I just thought of a fun analogy:

 

You know what trusting a multi billionare businessman who has spent his life exploiting the system and profiting from others to then be given a position of relative power over the legitslature, and trusting him to close the loopholes that him and all of his rich friends benefit from instead of widening them open when he has access to the entire budget is like?

 

It's like trusting a heroin addict with 50 kilo's of smack and trusting him to not to just blow it all between him and all his friends. That's what it's like. We have nothing more than his word to trust that he'll stay away from the motherload. He's promising really, really hard even as he looks at it while being a little on edge. And you kinda believe them because they are trying really hard, but you should really know better than to trust him. 

 

And Hillary is like the slightly weird guy already in the company you are considering for the job. Yeah she's got plenty of experience, and yeah she's qualified but there's always something off about her, she's always hanging around the back in parties, and you wish there was someone just a little more snazzy you could hire. But she knows everything about everyone so you are kinda forced to.  

 

It's just kinda funny you know. (Okay the Hillary one was a little too specific)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

Gaddafi was ready to strike a deal & hold elections. Hillary killed the deal. Led to ISIS, migrant crisis.

 

Hillary Clinton personally nixed a peace deal in Libya that would have led to free elections and prevented the country being seized by ISIS, all because of a personal vendetta she had with Muammar Gaddafi, according to explosive new claims made by a whistleblower who personally oversaw the negotiations.

 

Christian preacher Dr. Kilari Anand Paul is a global peace ambassador originally from India who is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Colonel Gaddafi personally invited Dr. Paul to Tripoli, Libya for peace talks having looked up to Paul as a spiritual leader since 1992 and having been impressed with the evangelist’s counseling work with King Hussein of Jordan and Yasser Arafat.

 

Dr. Paul arrived in Libya on August 5, 2011 with a contingent of Indian Members of Parliament and others on his peacekeeping team. Upon hearing of their arrival via press reports, General Wesley Clark encouraged Dr. Paul to try to negotiate a settlement between the U.S. State Department and Gaddafi in order to put a halt to the brutal conflict.

 

Over the course of ten days, an agreement was reached between Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, President Muammar Gaddafi and the U.S. State Department in coordination with the Obama White House. The deal was overseen by General Clark as well as U.S. Rep Dennis Kucinich.

 

Under the terms of the deal, detailed below in an official letter signed by Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi on August 19, 2011, Gaddafi agreed to cease hostilities and immediately move towards holding democratic elections that would put an end to his own 42-year dictatorship.

 

 

Another letter sent by Khaled Kaim, then Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya, thanks Dr. Paul for doing “whatever it takes to promote peace and stop war.”

 

Had this deal gone through, it would have saved countless lives that were lost in the aftermath, prevented the collapse of Libya into a failed state fought over by rival jihadist gangs and significantly alleviated the international migrant crisis that worsened dreadfully in the years that followed. It could even have contained ISIS’ spread across the Middle East. The Benghazi attack would never have happened.

 

According to Dr. Paul. General Clark was so pleased with the outcome of the negotiations that he personally arranged a teleconference with Hillary Clinton on the line to congratulate Dr. Paul on “getting the job done in the face of such danger.”

But there was a problem.

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t want peace. She wanted Muammar Gaddafi dead for her own selfish, spiteful reason – the fact that Gaddafi had favored Barack Obama over her own campaign during the 2008 presidential election cycle.

 

“It’s well known in Libya that Gaddafi supported Obama over Clinton in the run up to the ‘08 elections, despite the Clinton team approaching Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Gaddafi, and asking the family to invest in Hillary’s campaign and foundation, which they did not,” said Dr. Paul.

 

Hillary nixed the peace deal. The war continued. Libya – the most prosperous nation in Africa – fell into the hands of jihadist militants and subsequently ISIS. Thousands of migrants have since drowned in their desperate attempts to flee the country.

Gaddafi’s public execution was celebrated by Clinton during her now infamous television appearance when she exclaimed; “We came, we saw, he died!”

 

“Her personal vendetta better explains her oddly giddy behavior when taking credit for Gaddafi’s horrifying death, as captured on video for the world to see,” asserts Dr. Paul, adding that the footage “is evidence of a pathology or mental illness.”

 

Libya subsequently fell to jihadist rebels allied with Al-Qaeda, militants who had killed U.S. troops in Iraq and went on to kill four Americans during the Benghazi siege – all because Clinton had a personal vendetta with Gaddafi over his support for Barack Obama.

According to Dr. Paul, other Middle Eastern nations rushed to make substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation, fearful that they would be the next victims of Hillary’s wrath.

 

“Clinton’s penchant for the violent overthrow of less than cooperative governments knows no end, and they know it,” said Dr. Paul, adding that GCC member states Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are all “silently terrified at the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States.”

 

“Why is anyone who knew anything about Clinton’s overthrow of Gaddafi dead, missing, in prison, or their good name besmirched and their voice silenced?” asks Dr. Paul.

 

“Chris Stevens, my friend who helped negotiate peace in Libya is dead despite hundreds of his desperate pleas for more security – that was hardly a mistake. For that matter, where is my friend the Prime Minister who in good faith signed the peace agreement Clinton asked me to negotiate? Where is the Under Secretary who signed the other letter?”

It is important for the reader to understand that the Clinton-mouthpiece mainstream media will try to discredit this report by attacking Dr. Paul’s credibility.

 

Image: Dr. K.A. Paul with Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi after signing the peace agreement on August 19, 2011.

However, Dr. Paul’s account is backed up by former Congressman and civil rights leader Walter E. Fauntroy, who also visited Libya on a peace mission and was subsequently holed up with journalists at the Rixos Al Nasr hotel.

 

During his time in Libya, Fauntroy claimed that he witnessed Danish and French special forces committing atrocities against Libyan civilians and rebel fighters to be blamed on the Libyan government.

 

After the war, Fauntroy disappeared for five years, reportedly over allegations he had written a fraudulent check for $55,000, although the Congressman says he fled because he feared he would be assassinated to prevent him revealing what he had witnessed in Libya.

Dr. Paul also claims he was personally warned by a CIA agent that his life, “was in danger not from the war but from Secretary Clinton herself,” and that Clinton had a hand in ordering his subsequent arrest in order to besmirch his reputation.

 

New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi vouched for Fauntroy’s credibility. Corsi is set to release new footage of atrocities committed by Libyan rebels that were backed by Hillary Clinton.

 

“I have spoken with former Congressman Walter Fauntroy and I have researched his account of his experiences in Libya,” Corsi told Infowars.

 

“My conclusion is that Fauntroy is 100 percent credible and telling the truth. He confirms what I have already put into print about various other efforts to have Gaddafi abdicate that were ignored or otherwise rebuffed by the Clinton State Department.”

 

Dr. Paul is vehement in laying the blame for the subsequent disaster in Libya firmly at the feet of Hillary Clinton, adding that the entire scandal “makes Watergate look like child’s play.”

 

“The image of bodies of women and precious children piled high in the streets of Tripoli will haunt me forever—not to mention the millions of others who lost their homes and lives, becoming part of the massive wave of displaced immigrants seeking asylum,” said Paul.

 

He notes that stockpiles of world class weaponry disappeared shortly after the country fell to jihadists, creating a “brand new safe haven for ISIS in place of the Western-friendly, non-nuclear aspiration state Libya had become,” adding that this outcome was “directly attributable to Ms. Clinton’s self-serving and duplicitous foreign policy.”

 

“Any fifth grader would have insisted Clinton’s “regime change” at-any-cost was absurd in the absence of a succession plan and troops on the ground, essentially handing the very strategic territory and its assets over to whoever wanted them most, which not surprisingly turned out to be Islamic terrorists. The entire world is paying a high price for her stupidity and horrific decision by further radicalizing the Middle East,” asserts Dr. Paul.

 

Dr. Paul is adamant that emails will soon be revealed that confirm all of his claims. He is also demanding that, “General Clark should be brought before a Senate sub committee and forced to testify under oath immediately.”

 

Dr. Paul personally endorsed Donald Trump back in February, although he is bipartisan, having supported Barack Obama back in 2008 over his opposition to the Iraq war.

 

Dr. Paul concludes that he is putting his life at risk by revealing Hillary’s role in nixing the Libyan peace deal, but that he can no longer hold back.

 

“Anyone who knows too much about this deplorable former Secretary’s actions turns up dead like Chris Stevens or Gaddafi,” states Paul. “Still, there is far too much at stake for this great nation, America, for me to remain silent any longer. I know I’m risking my life going public with what I know—but God will hold me accountable if I know the truth and do not speak it for fear of Clinton.”

 

We'll see if anything comes out of this, but the next few days are gonna be full of this sorta funzies

[Dad]

Sketchy. This ain't from him, and it ain't for him. It was on his back but Gaddafi never made a move to finalize this. The only thing Killary killed was hope for the left.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sketchy. This ain't from him, and it ain't for him. It was on his back but Gaddafi never made a move to finalize this. The only thing Killary killed was hope for the left.

Maybe, but I somehow doubt the foreign minister was signing papers without first asking Gaddafi. One of the many things Killary killed was Obama's legacy

 

Another Update: FBI made side deals with 2 HRC associates to "destroy" their laptops after inspecting them. More sketchy. Might be wrong on this, but there was a congressional subpoena active at that time period right?

 

When people wonder why the FBI's approval rating with the public tanked from being around the level of Police and Military to around the level of the president, this kinda deal might be

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump

 

 

Clinton Campaign Admits Hillary Used Same Tax Avoidance "Scheme" As Trump 

 

"Those in glass houses should not throw rocks"

[Dad]

See? She's a God damn thief. But this time it want labeled genius or clever. They called it a scheme.

 

I get bias, but Holy sheet at least TRY.

 

EDIT: and now, in latest news. Trump says strong soldiers shouldn't get PTSD. Talk about disrespectful. If he's writing this himself, he has a long way to go. If not, someone needs to be fired. Immediately.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it,” Trump said. “And they see horror stories. They see events that you couldn’t see in a movie. Nobody would believe it.”

 

Lot of dinosaurs are big, and lot of dinosaurs are carnivores, but some dinosaurs are herbivores

 

Does not imply herbivores are small

 

Twitter just shows a lacking of understanding over the english language
 

“I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, president and founder of Mighty Oaks Warrior Programs. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”

[Dad]

Ya'll dont seriously expect the public to accept that, do you? They're gonna bring up the incident with the insulted soldier who died in Iraq.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ya'll dont seriously expect the public to accept that, do you? They're gonna bring up the incident with the insulted soldier who died in Iraq.

A vet dies every 65 minutes, that pathetic twitter trend has been running for 2 hours now? Priorities 

 

Seeing that most vets are defending Trump's statement, I don't think much will come out of it. MSM doesn't understand English. Trump voters will hate media more, clinton voters will use this as confirmation that Trump is a heartless jabroni, nothing changes

 

It'll be fun to see HRC bring up letting soldiers die after Benghazi 

[Dad]

We gonna bring up how many soldiers died before that in Iraq, or is that just a trolling point? Cuz I didn't hear Ya'll talking about soldiers before that. Ever.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

We gonna bring up how many soldiers died before that in Iraq, or is that just a trolling point? Cuz I didn't hear Ya'll talking about soldiers before that. Ever.

No, I think the whole thing is a faux outrage. I just don't think it's smart for HRC to bring up the PTSD thing when Trump can mock her on linguistics and perform a layup using Benghazi, and maybe a steal with HRC defending the Iraq vote