For a Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton has shown an unprecedented and;

well documented history of "Explosively Violent Outbursts of Rage", spanning the past 25 years.

You would really trust that deranged psychopath with the Nuclear Launch Codes?

Had even one of her many acts of "domestic violence" against Bill been proven in court, she would have been [and should be]

forever barred from possessing a firearm.

And You really want to hand Her the Nuclear Launch Codes?

Why don't you try to come up with a real list of Clinton's real scandals, not pretend, or made up by Faux News Entertainment, which, together with its commentators, has a lies rating of 76% in all of its political broadcasts.

Bottom line, Trump is lying to you, 75% of the time. He can only tell the truth 7% of the time. You are being lead around by the nose.

Make your list of documented, established by legitimate media Hillary scandals.

Trump's scandals are still emerging. Do you really think he cares about anything other than Trump? His own scandals prove otherwise.

Make you list, and lets compare.

Meanwhile, here is a list of single word discriptions of Trump by US Citizens:

http://trumpinoneword.com/?all-words

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Why don't you try to come up with a real list of Clinton's real scandals, not pretend, or made up by Faux News Entertainment, which, together with its commentators, has a lies rating of 76% in all of its political broadcasts.

Bottom line, Trump is lying to you, 75% of the time. He can only tell the truth 7% of the time. You are being lead around by the nose.

Make your list of documented, established by legitimate media Hillary scandals.

Trump's scandals are still emerging. Do you really think he cares about anything other than Trump? His own scandals prove otherwise.

Make you list, and lets compare.

Meanwhile, here is a list of single word discriptions of Trump by US Citizens:

http://trumpinoneword.com/?all-words

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Why don't you try to come up with a real list of Clinton's real scandals, not pretend, or made up by Faux News Entertainment, which, together with its commentators, has a lies rating of 76% in all of its political broadcasts.

Bottom line, Trump is lying to you, 75% of the time. He can only tell the truth 7% of the time. You are being lead around by the nose.

Make your list of documented, established by legitimate media Hillary scandals.

Trump's scandals are still emerging. Do you really think he cares about anything other than Trump? His own scandals prove otherwise.

Make you list, and lets compare.

Meanwhile, here is a list of single word discriptions of Trump by US Citizens:

http://trumpinoneword.com/?all-words

Why don't you try to come up with a real list of Clinton's real scandals, not pretend, or made up by Faux News Entertainment, which, together with its commentators, has a lies rating of 76% in all of its political broadcasts.

Bottom line, Trump is lying to you, 75% of the time. He can only tell the truth 7% of the time. You are being lead around by the nose.

Make your list of documented, established by legitimate media Hillary scandals.

Trump's scandals are still emerging. Do you really think he cares about anything other than Trump? His own scandals prove otherwise.

Make you list, and lets compare.

Meanwhile, here is a list of single word discriptions of Trump by US Citizens:

http://trumpinoneword.com/?all-words

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Why don't you try to come up with a real list of Clinton's real scandals, not pretend, or made up by Faux News Entertainment, which, together with its commentators, has a lies rating of 76% in all of its political broadcasts.

Bottom line, Trump is lying to you, 75% of the time. He can only tell the truth 7% of the time. You are being lead around by the nose.

Make your list of documented, established by legitimate media Hillary scandals.

Trump's scandals are still emerging. Do you really think he cares about anything other than Trump? His own scandals prove otherwise.

Make you list, and lets compare.

Meanwhile, here is a list of single word discriptions of Trump by US Citizens:

http://trumpinoneword.com/?all-words

I agree with much of what slatten49 says about trump. Trump is a liar, a cheat, a conman, an imposter, and for all intent and purpose would make an excellent "used car salesman" but a piss-poor president. There is no doubt that his desire is to become the "absolute" leader of this nation. But, there is no evidence at this point which would indicate he has murdered anyone.
However, when slatten49 puts any credence on anything hillary says or does he has lost most of his credibility. Hillary is a murderer and most likely billy boy is too. But strangely those who attempt to investigate wind up dead before they complete their investigations. In short, I would place trump in the socialist-want-a-be dictator category and hillary in the murderer who should be put to death category.

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

Steve Chapman

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold the U. S. Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his bankruptcies.

The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that unauthorized immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods — either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification ... and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible — as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.