Trump all but endorses Roy Moore

Hell in this day that's practically nothing. Even Kaitlyn Jenner has said that Bruce Jenner fondled her multiple times.

 

The House did.

 

Got anything besides allegations? Got a cum covered dress? Pictures of him groping a sleeping woman's breast? Anything? Didn't think so.

 

Corroborators.

 

Here us a good question since we are talking about the year book that the girl says Moore signed. Add to this story the fact that Moore's apologists claim that #

#1- the girl could not have worked there she was not old enough
#2- that the name of the place was wrong

If that girl did not work there how did she know that Moore frequented the place? Why would she use a year book to try and hook Moore as a Pedo ? That does not make sense. If he never signed it why would she come up with that?

 

Has anyone pondered why Monika kept that dress if it was not for blackmail?

 

They are afraid of being called a racist

 

The color of the ink looks different, but then that snapshot is all we have to go by. but it looks fishy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/moore_yearbook_signature_fraud.html

 

I am going back to my theorybabout Clinton and Moore. They both had a pattern regarding the type of female they went after. Clinton like them slightly chunky. Moore likes them young. Moore even stalked his current wife from the time she was 15. As a thirty something year old he perved at girls dance recitals. He lurked in thevshadows of dance recitals perking at underaged girls as their parents and grandparents watched them perform. The parents did not know that lurking in the shadows was Pedo Man learning at their child with lust and perverted thoughts and lerverted intentions.

 

In other shots it does not look blue but there is a variation in shading.
I believe that if you take a black on white document and scan it in digitally the shade of black can come out blue.

 

Donald J Trump

Tough on Shoplifters .... Weak on Child Molesters

 

That is sad but good!

 

Apparently not anymore. They elected a serial sexual abuser to the presidency. We'll see how they fare in Alabama.

And Republican politicians are busted for even worse transgressions, which they hypocritically deny. I give some points to those who accept their bad behavior. Republicans earn none.

Well... Trump did deny them after he confessed them to a hot mic. But then denied them... But, of course, he's a pathological case.

You have proven my point. Roy Moore sexually assaulted minors, and you excuse his actions. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Oh please, after reelecting Sen. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, Democrats have no leg to stand on.

You have absolutely zero proof of Roy Moore doing anything of the kind. all you have are rumors and unprovable accusations that are over thirty years old.

 

I was out of the country in the 90s, and I've never lived in Massachusetts.

All the proof that any reasonable human being would expect. Operative words here: "reasonable" and "human being". I can't account for fanatic creeps.

 

The person I was replying to doesn't need proof...said straight out he would vote for any actual molester or harasser or whatever as long as they follow his political agenda.

 

A Clinton put that load there. Call it protection......

 

Problem is the right wing is not conservative, nor do they support a smaller government as Reagan, and Bush 43, proved. It is just where to spend the money, not the size of government.

 

Interesting since there is no proof to prove the guilt of Clinton, or Obama, in spite of millions of dollars being spent on hearings. If you are of the same "conservative stripe" Trump is you have no standards.

BTW, what did I miss that proves me wrong? Trumps endorsement of Moore?

 

LOL

Show me the proof that makes Moore guilty.

You make stuff up, and then make arguments that destroy your own position.

Let me know when you plan to post something that I can take seriously.

 

Neither Bush was in favor of smaller government Rockefeller Republican never were. Neither are Neocons. Reagan did what he could but between the Republican left and the Democratic left there wasn't a lot he could do. The feds Because of the tax cuts and the sustained economic growth engendered by them Increased federal revenue by nearly a Trillion dollars between 1981 and 1988. Congress between the CINO's and the Dems increased spending nearly double between 1980 and 1984. Your next question will be why didn't Reagan veto any of it? And the answer is that after Ford vetoe a huge pork laden interior bill in 1974, Congress pretty much quit sending appropriations to the President by department unless they thought they could score political points and started to send the entire yearly appropriation bill through at once. This meant constitutionally that the president and his staff had thirty days to wade though something that congress had taken most of a year and sometimes longer to cobble together and would make "War and Peace" or Both volumes of Shogun seem like light reading by way of contrast.

 

Hearsay evidence isn't persuasive...

 

Aw man.....that was mean. I wonder how much insurance was on it?

 

Reagan and Bush were for smaller government as much as any present Republican is. Fact is that it's just a bumper-sticker. To them "reducing taxes" means, reducing them for the rich. Which invariably entails increasing them for the poor and middle class. This was true with Reagan, it was true with Bush, and it's just as true now.

It's not wise to believe in bumper-sticker slogans more than you believe in actual events.

If you live in bumper-sticker world, you can believe whatever you want. If you live in real-world, the fact is that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will increase taxes. The difference is who pays the increase, and who gets a pass. If you are a billionaire, and your concern is not paying more taxes, it would be absurd for you to vote Democrat. If you're middle class (generally defined as a family of 4 that makes less than $250K) or low class and, again, taxes are your main concern, it would be pretty stupid of you to vote Republican.

The "Tax plan" passed by the House is proof of this.

 

The problem is that their electorate wants smaller government, while politicians go into that line of work because they want MORE government.

It's a bit of a catch 22 for republicans. There's probably not a republican in congress who didn't campaign on getting rid of obamacare, but now that they can, they're just refusing to do it. Trump campaigned on the same thing, but he's doing the opposite. He just doesn't want to actually reduce his power, which is what he frickin' promised in his acceptance speech. He was going to give government back to the people, but suddenly he's thinking that maybe he spoke in haste.

That's the problem that republicans have, and one which is wreaking havoc with the party.