TRENTON ? Gov. Chris Christie is among the people being vetted as a possible running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to a report by the New York Times that explores how the New Jersey governor has become a powerful figure in Trump's campaign.

The report said Christie has also pleaded with GOP donors who have been against giving money to Trump's bid.

It said the governor was one of the top Republicans who privately urged Trump to fire campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, which the billionaire businessman did last month.

And it said Christie, the leader of Trump's transition team, has hired Richard Bagger, his former chief of staff in Trenton, to help with the effort to get Trump ready for the Oval Office should he win.

Is Christie in line to become Trump's chief of staff?

Christie was one of 16 opponents who ran against Trump in the GOP primary. When he dropped out in February, the governor was one of the first major Republicans to endorse the former Atlantic City casino tycoon, whom Christie has been friends with for more than a decade.

Christie has long been considered a possible pick to become Trump's vice president, though this is the first report to say he is actively being vetted.

Asked last week whether Trump's campaign is vetting him, Christie said: "Not that I know of."

There has also been talk the governor could become U.S. attorney general or White House chief of staff.

The Times report said some allies have said Christie has already taken on a role in Trump's campaign that's similar to chief of staff.

Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean Sr., a fellow Republican, told the newspaper that Christie is deeply involved in Trump's activities.

"He was advising him on speeches, he's advising him on policies," Kean told the Times.

"He's in a position to be a good adviser," Kean added, according to the report. "Whether Trump will listen to him or not, I don't know."

JCMan8 wrote:
Trump could learn a few lessons from Atsushi's Japan.

Japan's top court has approved blanket surveillance of the country's Muslims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor ... slamaphobia-a7109761.html

Et tu, Trey?

A day after the House Benghazi committee released a final report that left Hillary Clinton relatively unscathed, conservative activists ? the conspiracy-minded ones who pressured House leaders to appoint the committee in the first place ? rounded on Chairman Trey Gowdy for failing to deliver the goods.

?To say I was disappointed would be an understatement,? retired Adm. James ?Ace? Lyons complained at a meeting Wednesday afternoon of the Citizens? Commission on Benghazi,
a coalition of far-right ?foreign- policy types. ?Chairman Gowdy is not a stenographer. .?.?. He was there to make findings and conclusions. He had the information. He copped out, which is consistent that we?ve seen with all our congressional leadership.?

Retired Gen. Thomas McInerney agreed that ?the American people want to know from a group that spent almost two years on it what the conclusions are. That?s what we pay you for, Mr. Gowdy.?

Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, one of the four Americans killed in Benghazi, lamented that ?I really don?t have closure as far as who made the decision not to rescue.? And Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media, which convened the Citizens? Commission at the National Press Club, complained that ?they put a bunch of transcripts in there, interviews, but they didn?t weave it all together.?

House Republicans released their report on the attack on the 2012 U.S. consulate in Benghazi on June 28. Here are the 5 most serious accusations in the report. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

There were murmurs of agreement from participants when Lyons said of Gowdy: ?Regretfully, I don?t think he measured up yesterday.?

A woman in the crowd floated a new Benghazi conspiracy. ?Has someone in the GOP leadership gotten their fingers involved in watering down some of this to benefit Secretary Clinton?? she asked.

Nobody rebutted this idea.

Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It?s a fool?s errand. They went to the tea party ? and now they?re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same ? and the agitators are as agitated as ever.

Two GOP members of Gowdy?s own committee were dissatisfied enough to write their own narrative drawing more sweeping accusations against Clinton and President Obama. Gowdy must feel the need for some cover: A day after delivering what was supposed to be the definitive account of Benghazi, his committee called in another witness for an interview. Democrats pointed out that the interviewee had just removed from his Facebook page the hashtag #IfYouVoteForHillaryYouAreBeyondStupid.

The Citizens? Commission on Benghazi, which held Wednesday?s event, is not the most reputable outlet. It dropped ?former CIA officer? Wayne Simmons as one of its 11 members after the former Fox News commentator, who it turns out had no military or intelligence experience, pleaded guilty to fraud charges this spring.

Even without Simmons?s creativity, the group managed to produce a 73-page Benghazi report this week full of inventive accusations. They found ?troubling evidence that Obama and Clinton were deeply and knowingly involved in running guns to al-Qaeda in Libya,? as well as ?a clear case of official U.S. government submission to the Islamic Law on slander.?

They determined that the Obama administration ?switched sides in what was then called the Global War on Terror? and ?benefited this country?s worst enemies.? They wrote that Clinton herself blocked U.S. military forces from attempting a rescue mission, and they attributed the decision to oust Libya?s Moammar Gaddafi in part to financial interests of the Clinton Foundation.

They judged that Obama ? one speaker referred to him as ?Barack Hussein Soetero Obama? ? had ?an ideological commitment? to expanding the Muslim Brotherhood. They even gave longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal credit for the administration?s ?support for the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood-led al Qaeda militias.? In one elaborate theory, they tied those guarding the U.S. facilities in Benghazi both to Blumenthal and to the wife of a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

They even faulted Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi, saying he ?rather romanticized the Libyan jihadis.?

?We see a field of smoking guns,? Aronoff said.

Clearly. But the Benghazi committee didn?t. Gowdy ?notably refrained from assigning blame or demanding accountability,? Clare Lopez, of the Center for Security Policy and an adviser to the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, told the gathering. ?He also did not draw a connection between the dots.?

?I think he had his reasons ? political,? McInerney said. He speculated that congressional leadership had approved ?black operations? to run weapons from Benghazi to Islamic State forces in Syria. ?That?s the dirty little secret that nobody wants out,? he said.

Aha! So Gowdy himself is in on the Benghazi conspiracy.

Pebble wrote:
For all the talk about Hillary getting foreign funds, Trump is outwardly courting them and then getting rejected...

https://twitter.com/NatalieMcgarry/status/747559880723161090

The scandal surrounding ?Trump University? is already an albatross for Donald Trump?s presidential campaign. The entire enterprise has been accused of being a con job, ripping off ?students? who trusted the developer?s name.

But as it turns out, there?s a new, related controversy surrounding the ?Trump Institute,? which is something else. The New York Times reports today that the Republican candidate ?lent his name, and his credibility? to this seminar business, which offered Trump?s ?wealth-creating secrets and strategies? for up to $2,000.

The truth was something else altogether.

As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial ? one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. ?I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar,? he said in the 2005 video, adding, ?I?m teaching what I?ve learned.?

Reality fell far short. In fact, the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades. Similar complaints soon emerged about the Trump Institute.

Yet there was an even more fundamental deceit to the business, unreported until now: Extensive portions of the materials that students received after forking over their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump?s special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.

All things considered, when Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) referred to Trump as a ?con man,? the senator may have been onto to something.

Consider the revelations from recent weeks:

* Those who ran ?Trump University? have faced credible allegations of stuffing their own pockets by preying on the vulnerable, selling unsuspecting students snake oil at indefensible prices and through misleading claims.

* Trump has boasted at great length about the millions of dollars he?s given away through charitable donations ? though many of these donations don?t appear to exist and many of the promises he made publicly went unfulfilled.

* A considerable chunk of Trump?s campaign fundraising went to Trump corporate products and services, giving rise to a new word for the political lexicon: ?scampaign.?

* And now the ?Trump Institute? is facing allegations of being yet another fraudulent operation, complete with bogus claims, shady characters, and ?the theft of intellectual property at the venture?s heart.?

The Times? report added:

The institute was another example of the Trump brand?s being accused of luring vulnerable customers with false promises of profit and success. Others, besides Trump University, include multilevel marketing ventures that sold vitamins and telecommunications services, and a vanity publisher that faced hundreds of consumer complaints.

Mr. Trump?s infomercial performance suggested he was closely overseeing the Trump Institute. ?People are loving it,? he said in the program, titled ?The Donald Trump Way to Wealth? and staged like a talk show in front of a wildly enthusiastic audience. ?People are really doing well with it, and they?re loving it.? His name, picture and aphorisms like ?I am the American Dream, supersized version? were all over the course materials.

Yet while he owned 93 percent of Trump University, the Trump Institute was owned and operated by Irene and Mike Milin, a couple who had been marketing get-rich-quick courses since the 1980s.

I realize, of course, that there are many voters who trust Donald J. Trump?s word. I?m less clear on why.

Most here are old enough to remember Seinfeld. One of the most memorable episodes was "The Smelly Car". In that episode, Jerry leaves his BMW with a valet parking attendant and after he retrieves it, it reeks of body odor. And when Elaine and others ride in the car, they, too, wind up smelling like B.O. And they can't get rid of it. By the end of the episode and after several attempts to clean the car, Jerry winds up having to abandon the car - but even the guy who takes the keys from him won't even take it.

The moral of the story: Donald trump IS the valet parking guy. He reeks. And everyone and everything who comes in contact with him or associates with him winds up reeking of the same stench that Trump emits. Consider the story about James Dobson and his tacit acceptance of Trump's alleged Christian conversion. The moment Dobson accepted the very tenuous story about Trump, he owned Trump's smell. Now he is going to have to spend weeks, months, or years trying to cleanse himself of it. And in the end, he'll still be known as the poor sap Christian leader whose name is next to Trump's. Trump's path is littered with people who have the Trump B.O.

Jay Caruso said it here:

Sorry Trump supporters. You don't get to lay down the results of your bad decisions at our feet. If Trump is the nominee and he loses, you're to blame.

Because you made it happen. You made your decision. You live with your decision.

And conservative radio host Charlie Sykes was equally pointed:

Because I've cautioned my fellow conservatives, you embrace Donald Trump, you embrace it all. You embrace every slur, every insult, every outrage, every falsehood. You're going to spend the next six months defending, rationalizing, evading all that. And afterwards, you come back to women, to minorities, to young people and say, that wasn't us. That's not what we're about. The reality is, if you support him to be president of the United States, that is who you are, and you own it.

James Dobson owns it. Chris Christie owns it. Rick Perry owns it. Bobby Jindal owns it. Every single person who decides to support Donald Trump is stuck with the B.O. that is Trump's identity. If you are a Trump supporter, you will smell just like him. But people won't say "It's B.O.!" - they'll say "Oh, he smells like a Trump Supporter" and they will avoid you like Seinfeld's car. The problem is, you won't be able to throw it away like Jerry did. You're stuck with it. Permanently.

Monroe wrote:
The Benghazi report just confirmed what we knew all along-Hillary lied about what happened. To the entire nation, and the families of the those killed.

To hyper partisans who have no shame, it's all good.

Still hoping to exploit the 2012 Benghazi attack as a 2016 campaign issue, Donald Trump declared on Twitter last week: ?If you want to know about Hillary Clinton?s honesty & judgment, ask the family of Ambassador Stevens.?

For Republican conspiracy theorists, that may not be the best idea. The New Yorker?s Robin Wright spoke this week with Dr. Anne Stevens, Ambassador Chris Stevens? sister, about whom she holds responsible for the terrorism that claimed his life.

?It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is under-budgeted.

?I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn?t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.?

Dr. Stevens went on to lament the degree to which her brother?s death has been ?politicized,? while also complaining about Congress? reluctance to ?focus on providing resources for security for all State Department facilities around the world.?

She added, ?With the many issues in the current election, to use that incident?and to use Chris?s death as a political point ? is not appropriate?. I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture.?

It should be interesting to hear Trump and other conspiracy theorists explain why Anne Stevens? perspective doesn?t matter.

Before moving on, Vox flagged a paragraph from the House Republicans? new Benghazi report, which was emblematic of the party?s larger problem.

?The assets ultimately deployed by the Defense Department in response to the Benghazi attacks were not positioned to arrive prior to the final lethal attack on the Annex. The fact that this is true does not mitigate the question of why the world?s most powerful military was not positioned to respond; or why the urgency and ingenuity displayed by team members at the Annex and Team Tripoli was seemingly not shared by all decision makers in Washington.?

Think about that one for a moment. For years, Republicans have argued that the Obama administration could have deployed military forces, which were positioned to make a difference, but failed to do so. This, they said, was proof of how awful the administration?s handling of the crisis was.

Now, however, Republicans are arguing that the Obama administration couldn?t have deployed military forces, which weren?t positioned to make a difference, which should nevertheless be seen as proof of how awful the administration?s handling of the crisis was.

After all of the countless hours of investigation, the hearings, the interviews, the depositions, the conspiracy theories, the media chatter, the bizarre social-media messages written by our crazy uncles who watch Fox all day, the event that received the most congressional scrutiny in the history of the United States turned out to be exactly what reality-based observers said it was.

The conspiracy theorists were completely, demonstrably wrong. Regrettably, the best Republicans could do with their special, select committee, was take what the Obama administration said, reword it to make it sound like a condemnation, and package it in an 800-page report that took two years and $7 million ? in our money ? to produce.

Don?t be too surprised if the right starts to turn on Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom conservatives invested so much hope in. The far-right South Carolinian was supposed to bury, not exonerate, Hillary Clinton, and his inability to deliver a useful campaign weapon will likely be seen as both a failure and a betrayal.

Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump's 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight?s forecast.

"We're at halftime of the election right now," Silver said. "She's taking a 7-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime. There's a lot of football left to be played. She's ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll."

Silver said "both candidates have a lot of room to grow," but the only recent candidate to blow a lead like the one Clinton holds was Massachusetts' then-Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988.

"Trump has never been ahead of Clinton in the general election campaign," Silver said. "He did a great job of appealing to the 40 percent of the GOP he had to win the election, the primary ? a lot different than winning 51 percent of 100 percent."

Silver called 49 states correctly in the 2008 presidential election and got all 50 in 2012.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Trump may come close - within 5% possibly, but won't be able to pull off the win in November. There simply aren't enough racist assholes in the US to push him over the top.

I agree 100%.

It is also interesting to see Republicans' behaviors.

It sure doesn't look like behavior of a winning team.

"Hardly anybody wants to speak at Trump's convention"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06 ... -trumps-convention-224815

It usually the greatest opportunity for young politicians to introduce themselves to the national stage. People who have future understandably don't want to ruin their career.

And who wants to be Trump's VP? People whose careers are nearing their end (or have already ended), like Christie, Gingrich and someone who is clearly a racist, like Jeff Sessions.

"?Racist? Senator Sticks With Donald Trump"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles ... ks-with-donald-trump.html

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Single poll doesn't mean anything, but the pattern does:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/p ... election-trump-vs-clinton

See the trend. It shows Clinton is consistently leading.

Interesting how that one 12 point poll did matter last week. The media had a field day with the number. ?Trump is doomed he is down 12 points in the polls and has no money? Let?s see if we hear anything about the 2 point poll. (lets see if nj.com runs a piece about the 2 points )

Here is the Real Clear Politics version Trump is never really that far behind?and he either ties or leads in the important state polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol ... s_clinton-5491.html#polls

.

SOS wrote:
Trump may come close - within 5% possibly, but won't be able to pull off the win in November. There simply aren't enough racist assholes in the US to push him over the top.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Trump supporters = deflection. You mention their scum candidate and they are quick to reply with some bs about Hillary who is 12 digits ahead. Girl bye!

Quinnipiac June 29,2016 :

Trump vs. Clinton Clinton 42, Trump 40 Clinton +2

Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Clinton 39, Trump 37, Johnson 8, Stein 4 Clinton +2

There are many reasons to vote against Donald Trump. Let me cite the most obvious.

He?s an ignoramus whose knowledge of public issues is more superficial than an occasional newspaper reader?s. He casts his intellectual laziness as a choice, a deliberate avoidance of expert views that might contaminate his ill-informed opinions. He excused his failure to consult professionals before commenting on the Brexit vote by dismissing foreign policy advisers in general, including his own. ?None of them are any good,? he said, as he likened running the world?s most powerful government and its foreign policy to opening a golf course.

He?s a charlatan, preposterously posing as a business genius while cheating investors, subcontractors, and his own customers. He?s rich because his father left him a great deal of money. He couldn?t turn a profit with a casino, for crying out loud. The epitome of someone who is famous for being famous, his business model consists mostly these days of selling his surname to a group of (often foreign) investors, who slap it on some vulgar monstrosity that consumers naturally associate with a vulgar reality TV celebrity.

He possesses the emotional maturity of a 6-year-old. He can?t let go of any slight, real or imagined, from taunts about the length of his fingers to skepticism about his portfolio. So shaky is his psyche that he?s compelled to fits of self-sabotage to defend his self-regard, as was the case in his racist, politically devastating attacks on U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. He views the powers of the presidency as weapons to punish people who?ve been mean to him ? reporters, rival candidates, critics. ?They better be careful,? he warns.

He?s unhinged by criticism from women, most particularly female journalists. Who knows what that?s about, but whatever the cause of his misogyny, minor exchanges provoke it. It needn?t take an insult or criticism; sometimes just a lack of fawning deference will have him spewing abuse at the offending woman.

He?s a bigot or is pretending to be one in order to win votes from people who hold ?others? to blame for the country?s problems and theirs -- other races, other religions, other classes. He asks nothing of his supporters? patriotism. Just elect him and he?ll keep out the Mexicans and the Muslims, start trade wars with China and Japan, confiscate Middle Eastern oil and hey, presto, America?s great again. He doesn?t appeal to a single honorable quality or instinct in our society. He exploits fear and incites hatred. They are the emotions that impel him. He wants us to make our way in the world as he does: selfish, insecure, angry, scapegoating, small.

His election would endanger the security of the United States and our standing in the world. The widely respected geopolitical analysis firm, the Economist Intelligence Unit, declared his election a top 10 global threat. I believe President Obama has been the worst foreign policy president in my lifetime. But he?s Winston Churchill compared to Donald Trump.

Trump encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and hints at encouraging their use. He welcomes relationships with the world?s worst tyrants, even homicidal madmen like North Korea?s Kim Jong-un. He seems to hold rivals in higher regard than allies. He professes admiration for Vladimir Putin, maybe our most determined and dangerous adversary. The current administration has proved half-hearted in its opposition to the ruthless Russian autocrat?s troublemaking. But Trump seems almost to take Putin?s side.

Last week in Scotland, Trump celebrated the Brexit vote as if it were his idea, even though weeks earlier he didn?t appear to know what the term referred to, and despite the fact that Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain in the E.U. Even Putin, who believes the U.K. leaving the E.U. will weaken Europe?s ties with the U.S., showed more decorum in discussing the decision. When Vladimir Putin appears more of a statesman than the Republican Party?s presidential nominee, something has gone seriously wrong in American politics.

Trump doesn?t advocate a realist view of the world in which human rights and the global progress of American political values are a secondary concern. He repudiates those values and American world leadership. He calls for murdering the children of jihadists, stealing other nations? resources, torturing prisoners, ending alliances based on shared values as much as mutual interest, fighting economic wars with former trading partners, making common cause with nativist movements in other countries, and letting the world descend into cataclysms of violence and oppression and terror.

As long as no one is making a sucker out of America ? and by America he means Donald Trump ? he?s doesn?t see why we would want to spend time and capital in helping make the world safer, freer, more just and prosperous.

Whatever Hillary Clinton?s faults, she?s not ignorant or hateful or a nut. She acts like an adult, and understands the responsibilities of an American president. That might not be a ringing endorsement. But in 2016, the year of Trump?s s campaign, it?s more than enough.

Atsushi wrote:
Single poll doesn't mean anything, but the pattern does:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/p ... election-trump-vs-clinton

See the trend. It shows Clinton is consistently leading.

TheBigGuy wrote:
And what is Hillary Clinton stand on for profit schools? Apparently fine is Bill and her get their taste... one investigation at a time.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2 ... n-on-for-profit-colleges/

TheBigGuy wrote:
Love you final comments about nuance... despite the FBI declaring that there is no evidence from their investigation to say the Muslim Terrorist is Gay. Yet in your empty head, the WH inspired theory that the Muslim Killer in Orlando is a self hating Gay person is still rattling. There is no connection, as I said in earlier posts, he was not cruising bars... he was stalking his prey. Nothing nuanced, stop deflecting the facts.

Monroe wrote:
Judge Curiel not only awarded a scholarship to an illegal alien, but his California La Raza lawyers group hosts a link to the national La Raza hate group.

Gee, if Trump belonged to a group who had an Aryan Nation link on its website, now we'd have a story!

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
BREAKING NEWS: AT LEAST 10 DEAD AS APPARENT SUICIDE BOMBERS HIT ISTANBUL AIRPORT

No claim of responsibility yet

Yup, Obama and Hillary-they sure do know how to deal with the Muslim world!

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Trump gives millions, and guess who gets most of Hillary's donations? The Clinton Foundation, which then pays out huuuuuge salaries to her friends and family. You can't make this stuff up.

Just ask Chelsea... a fortunate daughter.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Oh please... The Clinton Foundation is the family slush fund.

user1111 wrote:
Trump supporters = deflection. You mention their scum candidate and they are quick to reply with some bs about Hillary who is 12 digits ahead. Girl bye!

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Trump gives millions, and guess who gets most of Hillary's donations? The Clinton Foundation, which then pays out huuuuuge salaries to her friends and family. You can't make this stuff up. (Edited to add-women at the Clinton Foundation aren't paid as huuuuuuge as men are, lol).

nj.com comment Quote:

Too funny:

"As for charitable donations, the Clintons gave just under $15 million over the eight-year period, which is 10.8 percent of their total income. The vast majority of that ? about $14.8 million ? went through the Clinton Family Foundation, the vehicle the Clintons frequently use to make personal donations, and another $57,000 went to the Clinton Global Initiative."

Monroe wrote:
Trump gives millions, and guess who gets most of Hillary's donations? The Clinton Foundation, which then pays out huuuuuge salaries to her friends and family. You can't make this stuff up. (Edited to add-women at the Clinton Foundation aren't paid as huuuuuuge as men are, lol).

Too funny:

"As for charitable donations, the Clintons gave just under $15 million over the eight-year period, which is 10.8 percent of their total income. The vast majority of that ? about $14.8 million ? went through the Clinton Family Foundation, the vehicle the Clintons frequently use to make personal donations, and another $57,000 went to the Clinton Global Initiative."

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Trump supporters = deflection. You mention their scum candidate and they are quick to reply with some bs about Hillary who is 12 digits ahead. Girl bye!

Well we havvvvvvveeee too. Because when we talk about Hillary's major accomplishment in the senate (voting for the Gulf War) and as Sec of State (?????? uh the reset button with Russia was cute) we get accused playing dirty politics. Please tell us why she has your wholehearted support and try to leave Trump out of your response?