Up Like Trump

[Spendulus]

Mexico is not the illegal aliens' best friends, far from it.

The rights and benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants in the United States are much better than those granted to the same group in Mexico. Apart from that, recently thousands of illegals from countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala have been abducted by criminal cartels such as the Los Zetas and the Los Caballeros Templarios. Corpses belonging to a few of them have been found in the Sonoran desert. But no one know what happened to the rest.

Yes, we do.

Los Zetas Cartel Used Network of Ovens to Hide Mass Extermination in Mexico’s Coahuila

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/02/08/los-zetas-cartel-used-network-of-ovens-to-hide-mass-extermination/

Are these ovens capable of "processing" all the liberal retards who are planning to immigrate to Mexico, once Trump become the POTUS?

I have to admit that the methodology they used, to process the corpses were very innovative, and time efficient. Hopefully, if Hitlery becomes the POTUS, the American citizens (especially those in the border areas of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona) will be fortunate enough to get a taste of these revolutionary techniques.

WELL, SINCE WE'RE SLINGING MUD HERE....

Hillary

Hitlery

Hitler

A small step, isn't it?

[Wilikon]

I just don't see how Hispanic can support Trump...
It's like the blacks who supported Clinton, it's stupid as hell!!!

As I pointed out earlier, it is only a small part of the Hispanic population. May be 25% of the Nevadan Hispanics are Republican. Out of that around 40% voted for Trump. That means that somewhere around 10% of the Nevadan Hispanics are in favor of Trump.

The reason why these people vote for Trump is that he is the only one who is going to stop the uncontrolled influx from Mexico, thereby stopping newer immigrants snatching away jobs from the already settled immigrants.

... from the already settled legal immigrants.

[galdur]

At last night’s Democratic town hall, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo asked Hillary Clinton to explain why she continues to withhold the transcripts of speeches she gave to several Wall Street banks between 2013 and 2015, for which she earned $2.5 million. You can watch the exchange above, or read the transcript below:

Chris Cuomo: Earlier tonight, I asked Senator Sanders, will you give your transcripts of speeches—that’s what you said, when the others give, then I’ll give—he said he doesn’t have any bank speeches, if he can find any of the speeches he did give for money, he will gladly give the transcripts up. So: Will you agree to release these transcripts? They have become an issue.

Clinton: Sure, if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans, because we know they have made a lot of speeches.
After adding some boilerplate about how she intends to regulate the U.S. financial industry, Cuomo interjected:

Cuomo: All the more reason to remove this as an issue. You know everybody’s not going to bring up their transcripts—they’re’ll be a hundred reasons—

Clinton: Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else, Chris? [applause]
Clinton’s justification for not releasing these speeches largely mirrors what she told ABC News earlier this month: “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time.”

This logic is absurd. The reason there’s a different standard for Clinton is that she is the only candidate in this race who, after personally accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, decided to run for President on a platform of regulating those banks. Her sustained evasion last night is particularly ridiculous because, two days after her ABC News interview, the public learned that, during a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton reportedly acted and spoke like a Goldman executive hoping to rally the banks’ rank-and-file for another profitable quarter. One attendee told Politico, “In this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

It’s become increasingly clear that the content of these speeches are, in fact, highly damaging to Clinton’s self-rendered image as a tough Wall Street regulator. What else could explain her repeated refusals to release them to the public?

Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Video: CNN

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Must Be Really Bad

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

[Wilikon]

At last night’s Democratic town hall, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo asked Hillary Clinton to explain why she continues to withhold the transcripts of speeches she gave to several Wall Street banks between 2013 and 2015, for which she earned $2.5 million. You can watch the exchange above, or read the transcript below:

Chris Cuomo: Earlier tonight, I asked Senator Sanders, will you give your transcripts of speeches—that’s what you said, when the others give, then I’ll give—he said he doesn’t have any bank speeches, if he can find any of the speeches he did give for money, he will gladly give the transcripts up. So: Will you agree to release these transcripts? They have become an issue.

Clinton: Sure, if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans, because we know they have made a lot of speeches.
After adding some boilerplate about how she intends to regulate the U.S. financial industry, Cuomo interjected:

Cuomo: All the more reason to remove this as an issue. You know everybody’s not going to bring up their transcripts—they’re’ll be a hundred reasons—

Clinton: Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else, Chris? [applause]
Clinton’s justification for not releasing these speeches largely mirrors what she told ABC News earlier this month: “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time.”

This logic is absurd. The reason there’s a different standard for Clinton is that she is the only candidate in this race who, after personally accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, decided to run for President on a platform of regulating those banks. Her sustained evasion last night is particularly ridiculous because, two days after her ABC News interview, the public learned that, during a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton reportedly acted and spoke like a Goldman executive hoping to rally the banks’ rank-and-file for another profitable quarter. One attendee told Politico, “In this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

It’s become increasingly clear that the content of these speeches are, in fact, highly damaging to Clinton’s self-rendered image as a tough Wall Street regulator. What else could explain her repeated refusals to release them to the public?

Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Video: CNN

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Must Be Really Bad

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

Clinton is fighting, no just to become president, but to stay out of jail too.

[Elwar]

At last night’s Democratic town hall, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo asked Hillary Clinton to explain why she continues to withhold the transcripts of speeches she gave to several Wall Street banks between 2013 and 2015, for which she earned $2.5 million. You can watch the exchange above, or read the transcript below:

Chris Cuomo: Earlier tonight, I asked Senator Sanders, will you give your transcripts of speeches—that’s what you said, when the others give, then I’ll give—he said he doesn’t have any bank speeches, if he can find any of the speeches he did give for money, he will gladly give the transcripts up. So: Will you agree to release these transcripts? They have become an issue.

Clinton: Sure, if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans, because we know they have made a lot of speeches.
After adding some boilerplate about how she intends to regulate the U.S. financial industry, Cuomo interjected:

Cuomo: All the more reason to remove this as an issue. You know everybody’s not going to bring up their transcripts—they’re’ll be a hundred reasons—

Clinton: Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else, Chris? [applause]
Clinton’s justification for not releasing these speeches largely mirrors what she told ABC News earlier this month: “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time.”

This logic is absurd. The reason there’s a different standard for Clinton is that she is the only candidate in this race who, after personally accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, decided to run for President on a platform of regulating those banks. Her sustained evasion last night is particularly ridiculous because, two days after her ABC News interview, the public learned that, during a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton reportedly acted and spoke like a Goldman executive hoping to rally the banks’ rank-and-file for another profitable quarter. One attendee told Politico, “In this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

It’s become increasingly clear that the content of these speeches are, in fact, highly damaging to Clinton’s self-rendered image as a tough Wall Street regulator. What else could explain her repeated refusals to release them to the public?

Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Video: CNN

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Must Be Really Bad

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

Clinton is fighting, no just to become president, but to stay out of jail too.

No fan of Clinton but she should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches. She knows they will be used against her just like Romney's speech in front of a bunch of rich people. Those that want to see the speeches just want to use them against her and she knows it.

Though if something comes out during her trial about revealing classified information at these events then she will have to.

[bryant.coleman]

I just don't see how Hispanic can support Trump...
It's like the blacks who supported Clinton, it's stupid as hell!!!

As I pointed out earlier, it is only a small part of the Hispanic population. May be 25% of the Nevadan Hispanics are Republican. Out of that around 40% voted for Trump. That means that somewhere around 10% of the Nevadan Hispanics are in favor of Trump.

The reason why these people vote for Trump is that he is the only one who is going to stop the uncontrolled influx from Mexico, thereby stopping newer immigrants snatching away jobs from the already settled immigrants.

... from the already settled legal immigrants.

I don't  think that illegal immigrants can register to vote in the United States. Some of the anchor babies have obtained citizenship, along with millions of other Mexicans who used various loopholes in the laws and regulations to legalize their status. A majority of these legal Mexicans support the Democrat party, but there is a considerable minority who votes for the GOP.

[Wilikon]

I just don't see how Hispanic can support Trump...
It's like the blacks who supported Clinton, it's stupid as hell!!!

As I pointed out earlier, it is only a small part of the Hispanic population. May be 25% of the Nevadan Hispanics are Republican. Out of that around 40% voted for Trump. That means that somewhere around 10% of the Nevadan Hispanics are in favor of Trump.

The reason why these people vote for Trump is that he is the only one who is going to stop the uncontrolled influx from Mexico, thereby stopping newer immigrants snatching away jobs from the already settled immigrants.

... from the already settled legal immigrants.

I don't  think that illegal immigrants can register to vote in the United States. Some of the anchor babies have obtained citizenship, along with millions of other Mexicans who used various loopholes in the laws and regulations to legalize their status. A majority of these legal Mexicans support the Democrat party, but there is a considerable minority who votes for the GOP.

Yeah... well... 


SURPRISE! Obama is Trying to Let Non-Citizens Vote in the November Election


    The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election

    Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them.

    On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.

    Under federal law, the EAC is responsible for designing the federal voter-registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, as it is commonly called. While states must register voters who use the federal form, states can ask the EAC to include instructions with the federal form about additional state registration requirements. Some states are now requiring satisfactory proof of citizenship to ensure that only citizens register to vote.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting

[Wilikon]

 

[mainpmf]

I just don't see how Hispanic can support Trump...
It's like the blacks who supported Clinton, it's stupid as hell!!!

As I pointed out earlier, it is only a small part of the Hispanic population. May be 25% of the Nevadan Hispanics are Republican. Out of that around 40% voted for Trump. That means that somewhere around 10% of the Nevadan Hispanics are in favor of Trump.

The reason why these people vote for Trump is that he is the only one who is going to stop the uncontrolled influx from Mexico, thereby stopping newer immigrants snatching away jobs from the already settled immigrants.

AH, you may have some difficulty seeing this, unless you walk down those streets in Las Vegas.

But "Hispanics" is not the right category.  "Hispanics who are US CItizens" is the category you want.  Many places here, 40-90% of "Hispanics" are illegal immigrants here from any where from 1 day to 40 years...

Lol xD

Don't know if it's right (I'd rather bet percentage are wrong) but you made me laugh with this precision xD

[Wilikon]

 

[vokain]

Literally every time I see something Trump related I can't help but smile or let out a good chuckle, it's great.

[xslugx]

 

Wtf is happening? Well just go watch Idiocracy. It's EXACTLY what's happening. EXACTLY.

[vokain]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-24/donald-trump-right-here-are-100-reasons-why-we-need-audit-federal-reserve

[vero]

At last night’s Democratic town hall, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo asked Hillary Clinton to explain why she continues to withhold the transcripts of speeches she gave to several Wall Street banks between 2013 and 2015, for which she earned $2.5 million. You can watch the exchange above, or read the transcript below:

Chris Cuomo: Earlier tonight, I asked Senator Sanders, will you give your transcripts of speeches—that’s what you said, when the others give, then I’ll give—he said he doesn’t have any bank speeches, if he can find any of the speeches he did give for money, he will gladly give the transcripts up. So: Will you agree to release these transcripts? They have become an issue.

Clinton: Sure, if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans, because we know they have made a lot of speeches.
After adding some boilerplate about how she intends to regulate the U.S. financial industry, Cuomo interjected:

Cuomo: All the more reason to remove this as an issue. You know everybody’s not going to bring up their transcripts—they’re’ll be a hundred reasons—

Clinton: Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else, Chris? [applause]
Clinton’s justification for not releasing these speeches largely mirrors what she told ABC News earlier this month: “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time.”

This logic is absurd. The reason there’s a different standard for Clinton is that she is the only candidate in this race who, after personally accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, decided to run for President on a platform of regulating those banks. Her sustained evasion last night is particularly ridiculous because, two days after her ABC News interview, the public learned that, during a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton reportedly acted and spoke like a Goldman executive hoping to rally the banks’ rank-and-file for another profitable quarter. One attendee told Politico, “In this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

It’s become increasingly clear that the content of these speeches are, in fact, highly damaging to Clinton’s self-rendered image as a tough Wall Street regulator. What else could explain her repeated refusals to release them to the public?

Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Video: CNN

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Must Be Really Bad

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

How many other presidential candidates have given speeches to Wall Street firms? How many have been paid $200,000+ for a single speech to a Wall Street firm?

[BADecker]

At last night’s Democratic town hall, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo asked Hillary Clinton to explain why she continues to withhold the transcripts of speeches she gave to several Wall Street banks between 2013 and 2015, for which she earned $2.5 million. You can watch the exchange above, or read the transcript below:

Chris Cuomo: Earlier tonight, I asked Senator Sanders, will you give your transcripts of speeches—that’s what you said, when the others give, then I’ll give—he said he doesn’t have any bank speeches, if he can find any of the speeches he did give for money, he will gladly give the transcripts up. So: Will you agree to release these transcripts? They have become an issue.

Clinton: Sure, if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans, because we know they have made a lot of speeches.
After adding some boilerplate about how she intends to regulate the U.S. financial industry, Cuomo interjected:

Cuomo: All the more reason to remove this as an issue. You know everybody’s not going to bring up their transcripts—they’re’ll be a hundred reasons—

Clinton: Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else, Chris? [applause]
Clinton’s justification for not releasing these speeches largely mirrors what she told ABC News earlier this month: “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time.”

This logic is absurd. The reason there’s a different standard for Clinton is that she is the only candidate in this race who, after personally accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, decided to run for President on a platform of regulating those banks. Her sustained evasion last night is particularly ridiculous because, two days after her ABC News interview, the public learned that, during a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton reportedly acted and spoke like a Goldman executive hoping to rally the banks’ rank-and-file for another profitable quarter. One attendee told Politico, “In this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

It’s become increasingly clear that the content of these speeches are, in fact, highly damaging to Clinton’s self-rendered image as a tough Wall Street regulator. What else could explain her repeated refusals to release them to the public?

Email the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Video: CNN

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Must Be Really Bad

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

How many other presidential candidates have given speeches to Wall Street firms? How many have been paid $200,000+ for a single speech to a Wall Street firm?

So you want to vote big money in? Isn't it the rich who have been dragging you into court? Isn't it the rich who would rather have a bunch of sheeple to rule, rather than have a bunch of free men and women to stand by their side?

[Wilikon]

Literally every time I see something Trump related I can't help but smile or let out a good chuckle, it's great.

Subscribe and have fun!!!!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/47e34l/lets_have_a_quick_chat_about_the_modding/

 

[aardvark15]

I don't get why so many republicans don't like Trump.  He has been on Fox news many times.  They helped make him what he is today as far as a political figure.  He just shakes things up more than anybody else.

[Moloch]

I found a Mad TV clip from 1997, which is basically Trumps entire campaign...

MADtv Darlene McBride - Take Back America Tour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A

[xht]

Donald Trump Keeps Winning. Here’s What Could Make Him Lose.

Donald J. Trump has snatched three straight victories, built a powerful lead in national polls and knocked several opponents out of the 2016 presidential race. His path to the Republican nomination looks wider than ever. But it could still contain pitfalls and roadblocks. Here are some of the ways he could still stumble.
Billionaires get into the game

Top Republican donors have shied away from confronting Mr. Trump, but at some point the party’s bankrollers may get serious about saving it from a man they view as a catastrophe. If they did, this could represent a serious threat to Mr. Trump. Imagine tens of millions of dollars in attack ads blanketing the landscape of primary states.

But while billionaires like Robert Mercer and Paul Singer have given generously to candidates, only one superwealthy clan, the Ricketts family, has given a few million dollars to an anti-Trump group. Even the conservative Koch brothers, who are seen as deeply resistant to Mr. Trump, have remained on the sidelines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/donald-trump-path.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[popcorn1]

where filling buckets with pigs blood waiting OH AND DOGS to bite the fuckers.
 
Where going to send in the gays in first..They go in and say OH CHASE ME..Then the little monkeys run after the gays and then we trap them in a corner send in the dogs to bite the fuckers to bits then we load up with pig blood soaked bullets and smoke the fuckin lot of them..the dirty little goat shagging kid fuckers.
Some little muslim told my wife today she not a loud to take my dog into the sweet shop because it's
against his religion..he said in his country they SLIT DOGS THROATS..

I WISH I WOULD OF BEEN THERE..
The hindu who owns the shop only employed this muslim for 2 weeks
we have always took my dog in the shop for 7 years the hindu was off that day..
 he as lost a customer and i spend easy 60 pounds a week and also all my friends i will make sure they never go in there..
i will make that hindu pay for employing a muslim no one i know will go in that shop ..
So he lost about 15k worth of custom a year..
HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT HIS RELIGION UP NOT IN THE UK MUSLIM PEDO
FUCK OFF BACK TO SANDLAND

COME ON TRUMP PLEASE WIN

ISLAM I.E SHARIA LAW hates kids women gays dogs atheist Christians and jews.