Hillary - Child Avenger?

You can't separate the issue of child welfare from abortion

Considering that "any time" means "the 12th of never" statistically....

If an abortion occurs during the first 13 weeks than the aborted fetus is not a child, sorry.

You can't separate your lies from the truth. Cite the exact quote you attributed to Clinton in Post #20.

Can't look it up while I'm here at home with no computer.

Pretty sure she said that effectively in one of the debates

No, she didn't.

Certainly not in the debates. I watched all three.

Fixed for accuracy.

If Dayton misses the point of TOS after growing up with it, this is a harder nut for him to crack.

Excuses, excuses. Here's the pertinent portion of the transcript:

It's your boy Trump who's writing horror stories here. When will you learn to verify your sources before you toss words on the page?

I've got a feeling that @Dayton3 has said that he doesn't intend to vote for Trump.

Indeed, and I'll post the link again for all to see:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ted-cruz-claim-hillary-clinton-backs-unlimit/
Here's the article for those who lack the ability to use their fingers (should they be wedged firmly up their ass):

TL;DR - No, no she said no such thing.

No he's voting Republican no matter what because a Republican will likely have more palatable Supreme Court choices for him, ie ones that will overturn Roe vs Wade, he's admitted that.

Good point. Reefer Johnson's the only "Don't kill your baby!!!!!" candidate. Pretty funny for a "libertarian."

My boy Trump?

Where do get that?

I assume the assumption that you will close mindedly vote for the Republican candidate whoever he or she is.

Yeah, absolutely. "Fact-checking" has become just another euphamism for Democrat/liberal propaganda.

Just like the Snopes spin that allegedly debunks the Hillary child rapist story. It does no such thing. It starts off with making a meaningless distinction that has nothing to do with the story (voluntarily accepting a case vs. being appointed by a judge), then tries to convince the reader that she was.just being a zealous advocate by forcing a plea bargain. It fails to address the fact that she forced the prosecutor into making the plea bargain by threatening to attack and destroy the 12 y/o girl on the stand by accusing her of being a little slut who was sexually fascinated with older men.

So yeah, there's your champion of children.

Considered in this light, it makes sense that Garamet would defend Hillary on this. It fits snugly with her Polanski defense. If you'll recall, she doesn't blame Polanski for drugging and anally raping the girl. No, she blames the victim's mother for "giving" the girl to Polanski as way to curry favor. She then blamed the girl herself for tempting and seducing Polanski.

Hillary pandered to white voters when it was politically expedient, using the same racial dog-whistling that libs routinely accuse Repubs of employing. So she excitedly told white folks that she would restore law & order ( sound familiar?) by getting tough on those inner-city super-predators (i.e. black teens).

Hillary. Stronger Together.

?

Sorry dreadfully messed up the above reply

I've made no secret of how much loathe Trump.

Doesn't matter how I vote anyway as Trump will win Arkansas given that Hillary Clinton is so despised here.

Then that means you aren't compelled to vote for him (or her) then if your vote makes no difference.

I note that while you keep saying you loathe him, you don't go as far as to say "I won't vote for him".

I-WILL-NOT-VOTE-FOR-TRUMP!

Ha ha, okay.

There you go @garamet, no doubt now.

He'll vote for Trump.

Here’s a thought, Mr. Spelling-and-Modifier-Challenged: If you don’t believe anything you read anywhere, then do your own fact-checking.

Take any item in Clinton’s history relative to your question and refute it with your own “facts.” Let’s see what sources you rely on. Or will you, like Dayton, just MSU about something you thought you heard?

Or just flame out as usual?

Oh look, here's Lietard "ignoring" me again.

Lietard has spent years telling anyone he could get to listen how I'm worthless and he has me on ignore.

Yet, he keeps showing up in my threads. If I can be certain of anything, it's that Lietard is going to sprint to my threads and proclaim how worthless my threads are.

You know, at this point I'm not even sure what I did in the distant past to get under this loser's skin so badly that he spends so much time telling folks he has me on ignore.

Seriously, does everyone here now know that he claims to have me on ignore? Or do you need him to mention it another 100 times before it sinks in?

I think he's genuinely perplexed as to why I haven't left WF due to his having me on ignore. "Why won't he go away? I've been giving him the silent treatment for the past 3 years" he asks himself despondently.

I have a suspicion that right now, I'm the most important thing in Lietard's sad, empty life.

At any rate I've decided whom I'm voting for president

I'm writing a name in.

Don't be lame by writing your own name in.

Thought about it.

But I'm writing in James D. Kitchens

Why don't you vote for me?