Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Finds Moore Allegations ‘Troubling,’ Wants People of Alabama to Decide His Fate

Trump Finds Moore Allegations ‘Troubling,’ Wants People of Alabama to Decide His Fate

Trump “still firmly believes” Moore should step aside if allegations are true.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Roy_Moore.jpg

President Donald Trump finds the allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore “troubling,” but thinks that the people of Alabama should decide their next senator. From USA Today:

“Look, the president believes these allegations are very troubling and should be taken seriously, and he believes the people of Alabama should make the decision on who their senator should be,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday.

Earlier this week, Trump said that Moore should step aside if the allegations are true. Sanders said Trump “still firmly believes this.”

Sanders did not say if Trump will remove his endorsement of Moore or if he will campaign for him. The special election takes place in December.

However, Sanders confirmed that “Trump supported the decision by the National Republican Senate Committee to withdraw its support for Moore’s campaign.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Which allegations? All? Any? That Moore liked to date and
flirt with pretty young girls seems well corroborated. That Moore bore interest under the age of consent, and that Moore touched someone unwilling, are far more dubious.

    rabid wombat in reply to ecreegan. | November 16, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Most are “judged” against the law of the time. What was the “age of consent” in ‘bama at the time? Just asking….

      Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 16, 2017 at 6:57 pm

      What’s the age of consent for sexual assault?

        rabid wombat in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 7:06 pm

        “What’s the age of consent for sexual assault?”

        What is the statute of limitations?

          Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 16, 2017 at 7:11 pm

          Really? THAT’s what you want to hang your hat on…???

          What was the statute respecting Juanita Broderick?

          Since Juanita Broaddrick came forward AT THE TIME, you’re comparing apples and sardines.

          Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm

          Also proximate to the time, she gave an affidavit saying her story was not true. IIRC.

          MarkSmith in reply to rabid wombat. | November 17, 2017 at 4:31 pm

          Jacobin Rags:

          “Also proximate to the time, she gave an affidavit saying her story was not true.”

          It does not sound like she said it is not true.

          In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones’s lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, “I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton.” Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she “had no standing as a reliable witness.” That’s one interpretation. But it often takes a while for rape accusers to come forward, so Broaddrick’s initial unwillingness to relay the allegation is hardly airtight proof she’s lying.

          Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 17, 2017 at 5:40 pm

          Quote the affidavit, Alt-right boi.

        When you have any, you know, actual evidence that ever happened, we’d love to see it.

        ooddballz in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 6:43 pm

        Where is your proof of sexual assault?

    Ragspierre in reply to ecreegan. | November 16, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    So which of the ladies who have alleged clear assault do you find “dubious”?

    Some? All?

    Why?

      Regardless of the reason for the delay of the accusation, 30+ years has rendered Moore completely defenseless. These women waited too long to seek justice; the Sword of Damocles has been lowered.

        Ragspierre in reply to MSO. | November 17, 2017 at 12:12 pm

        This is bullshit. Moore is not “defenseless”. I walked through this on another thread.

        And most of these people had to be asked to relate their accounts. Many only did so reluctantly. And we’ve seen why in the way they’ve been attacked by moral cowards.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm

          “Moral Cowards” Sure make up some more stuff.

          People are skeptics because of the timing of the release of this information a month before the election that the GOP Swamp wasted 30 Million on and the Dem’s are hoping to make a gain in the Senate to majority. Not sure where more cowards come in the picture, but if they do, it is a side show in your head.

OleDirtyBarrister | November 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

What if the Democrats manufacture a bimbo eruption against POTUS and a passel of women now comes forward claiming that Donnie Orange grabber their kitty or something else?

Will Donnie be in favor of stepping aside based on the existence of naked allegations with equal enthusiasm?

Connivin Caniff | November 16, 2017 at 7:34 pm

If Moore wins and McConnell tries to expel him, Moore should claim lack of equal protection and discrimination, and should insist that the Senate make public the names and circumstances of each and every Senator who was accused of sexual misconduct but nevertheless was permitted to stay in the Senate.

    Ragspierre in reply to Connivin Caniff. | November 16, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    Why is there an “if” as your predicate?

    That would be a frivolous claim. There is no right to equal treatment by the senate, and nothing wrong with discrimination. If 2/3 of the senate don’t like a member, and vote to expel him, they owe nobody any explanation, and the expelled member has no recourse.

      You offer one interpretation and if true, 2/3 thirds of the Senate could block any given state of all its seats in the Senate. Moore could be blocked in this fashion.

      Another argument would require cause for removal, such as the eligibility mandated by the constitution. Moore meets all of the constitutional requirements.

      A third argument would be that errant behavior as a Senator would suffice for removal. Unproven allegations are hardly sufficient to block Moore especially since his electorate, a true jury of his peers, would have found him not guilty.

Rags,

“Really? THAT’s what you want to hang your hat on…???
What was the statute respecting Juanita Broderick?”

There are a series of accusations, but there has been no legal proceedings. Moore, by definition, is innocent. This does not mean he is not guilty.

It is not my decision, but the decision of the residents of Alabama. I will be the first to say that there are too many “less than honorable” people in Government, both past and present. Texas has had their fair share.

If there was a standard, Kennedy, LBJ, Frank, and a host of other would never have graced the halls. We presently have a system of rewards, that is being driven by the electorate. The electorate is voting for what the Rep / Sen brings them rather than a more altruistic “what is best for the country…”. In short, perverse incentives.

    Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 16, 2017 at 7:47 pm

    Sorry, but bullshit.

    We do not suspend reason for “legal proceedings”.

    Did OJ kill his ex-wife?

    Did Bill Clinton obstruct justice?

    Is Hellery Clinton guilty of various crimes?

    The “presumption of innocence” is a legal fiction we afford to all accused by criminal law at risk of life, liberty or loss or property.

    THAT is its ONLY application. Anyone who pretends different is a liar, and has an agenda to excuse the behavior and apologize for the offender. (I’m not laying that at your feet, since I think you assert it in good faith, though grossly mistaken.)

    That there are too many “less-than-honorable” people in high office is a great reason NOT to add another.

      rabid wombat in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 8:20 pm

      If I remember correctly:

      Did OJ kill his ex-wife? Probably, but adjudicated ‘not guilty’….
      Did Bill Clinton obstruct justice? I believe he was found guilty….
      Is Hellery Clinton guilty of various crimes? Yes, but still innocent…still hoping

      Oswald?

      “Presumption”? though imperfect, we still live in the best country and judicial system there is….too bad it is still flawed. It is up to us to demand and effect the change. How we convince the rest….

        Ragspierre in reply to rabid wombat. | November 16, 2017 at 8:42 pm

        Please! Let’s not beat this to death.

        When a killer murders, did they murder? NOT the crime. The act. In real life. Not the kabuki theater of criminal law.

        Do you wait for a terrorist to be tried for an apparent, obvious and ADMITTED act of terrorism? Or do you say, “That person is innocent”?

        Did Dollar Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broderick?

        Did he sexually assault a whole raft of women?

        Actually, Clinton was never found guilty of any crime IIRC. He was disbarred, and that’s about all.

        He did pay a civil law settlement…where there is no presumption of innocence.

      So, if a group of women go to the media and claim that you abused animals, children or women, forty years ago, then we are supposed to automatically believe them and pillory you in public. While we’re at it, let’s destroy your business, revoke your law license, burn down your house and run you out of town on a rail. All based upon unsupported allegations. Got it. I really hope that you never find yourself in the same boat as Roy Moore, or Silvester Stallone.

      It is one thing if the media learns of an official law enforcement investigation into allegations made against a prominent person. But, in the Moore case, NO ONE has ever made an official complaint concerning the alleged behavior. Never. Not in the 40 years since it occurred. What the accusers did was go directly to the media and make unsubstantiated charges of wrongdoing. By publicizing these unsupported allegations, the media then damages to person accused who, due to the time elapsed between the alleged incident and the report, is unable to defend himself. And, the accusers are not vetted by the reporting media organ at all.

      This is the basis for the legal tenet of a presumption of innocence. However, the media, and mush of are society, is operating under the Napoleonic Code and presuming the accused is guilty until that person PROVES his innocence. Now, if you wish to live under the Napoleonic Code, fine. but, when you find yourself unable to defend against unsubstantiated charges of wrongdoing going back nearly half a century just remember it is what you wanted.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm

        You are typically full of shit.

        If a series of credible people, supported by other credible people, all telling a coherent story about me come forth, and I dissemble and outright lie about them, launch a full “Clinton” against them, do I deserve your vote? Do I deserve your trust? Are you assured I am a decent person?

        You have no integrity.

          LOL, Mr. Integrity speaks. The only person with integrity in the universe. Boldly sliming all that disagree.

          An Allred disciple. Aligned with the progs. Protector of forgeries. Proponent of multiple yearbooks per year.

          Guilty, guilty until proven innocent.

          “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

          Yep, Mr. Intrgrity all right.

          Credible witnesses? Sure. They abound in this. Diogenes would be working 24/7 to find one in the Moore controversy.

          You, from your position on your throne high atop Mount Olympus have determined that Moore is lying and his accusers are not. All without a shred of credible evidence. Please be careful with that lightning bolt that you are holding.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 11:25 am

          The spoken word is evidence, ya moron.

          And, yes, credible witnesses DO abound. Moore is not one.

          Hence the POTUS statement. Now, you name all the witnesses in these accounts, including the corroborating ones, and tell us which Diogenes would denounce.

          Go!

          The spoken word is the WORST possible evidence in any proceeding designed to establish truth. It is worthless without corroboration. Just because a person appears credible does not mean he is. We have very credible liars on the world. In fact, we elect a ton of them. Also, witness testimony is often colored by prejudice. Then we have the degradation of memory over time [remember 40 years has passed in this case]. So, testimonial evidence, without corroboration is of a low order of value. This is why details become important. If you have a Rashoman situation, where the witnesses tend to contradict each other, this destroys the credibility of all the witnesses. Again, in this case we have no detailed testimony to examine and NO physical evidence and the documentary “evidence” is extremely suspect. People who profess belief in either party, in this case, are simply indulging their personal prejudices.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm

          You are easily the greatest generator of complete bullshit on these threads.

          “People who profess belief in either party, in this case, are simply indulging their personal prejudices.”

          But “Diogenes”.

          Still awaiting your list, buckwheat.

          Juries decide cases every day on the credibility of witnesses, all across America. How many trials have you tried before a jury?

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2017 at 9:13 pm

        “And, the accusers are not vetted by the reporting media organ at all.”

        And THAT’s a lie and you’re a liar.

        For one thing, there is no ONE “media organ” reporting on this story. There are several, both local and national.

        For another, the accusers WERE vetted, and corroborating witnesses found and vetted.

        Which is WHY Moore will never file a defamation suit against any of the accusers or any “media organ”. Well, unless he’s insane and represented by people who hate him.

          Ah, back from riding the unicorn, I see.

          None of these accusers and witnesses has been vetted by the MSM. NONE. The only vetting of these people has been done by the alternate, largely amateur, media. And, that media has found information which greatly reduces their reliability. In fact, we have little information of these accusers and witnesses and as little on exactly what they said concernnig these allegations. Now, the veracity of the only piece of physical “evidence” which has been presented, the yearbook dedication, is proving to be extremely questionable.

          I am not sure if you realize how modern MSM journalism works. Most media organs use reporting done by others and simply reprint it. That is why you see the same stories in multiple local news organs across the country. They do not investigate themselves, they simply pick it up on AP and UPI wires or directly from the source organ.

          The reason that Moore will never sue the media, or the accusers, for these allegations is that he can not PROVE they are not false. Neither can the accusers PROVE that they are not. 40 years have elapsed. That is 290 years in dog or lawsuit years. Unless someone produces a smoking gun, we will never know if these allegations are true or not. Too much time has past and no one took a selfie, like Al Franken. or even reported it to authorities at the time.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 11:28 am

          “None of these accusers and witnesses has been vetted by the MSM. NONE.”

          Sure they were, liar. The vetting process developed the corroborating witnesses.

          You really are an idiot, which leads you to be the liar you are.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 11:40 am

          “Most media organs use reporting done by others and simply reprint it.”

          You’re remarkably ill-informed for a condescending prig.

          Several local “media organs” have done reporting on this, along with several national ones, including T-rumpBart.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 12:04 pm

          “The reason that Moore will never sue the media, or the accusers, for these allegations is that he can not PROVE they are not false.”

          No. That’s NOT the reason. The reason is he’d then open himself up to full discovery, including testimony under oath and cross.

          But, sparky, if he CAN’T sue, why did he threaten to sue? I’d say is was rank intimidation. Like with the Clinton “Bimbo Eruption” operation. Except amateur.

          Hmmmmm….????

So rather than rehash the debate over the charges against Moore, I’d like to hear whether folks agree with Trump’s position of letting the AL voters decide on Moore’s fate on Dec 12, when they will have three-plus more weeks to evaluate the competing claims and evidence. That sounds fair to me. Things can change quite a bit one way or the other in this time.

    Ragspierre in reply to civil truth. | November 16, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    I think it was very…careful.

    But I also think the statement that T-rump supports the National Republican Senate Committee’s withdrawal of support for Moore is a “tell”.

    There was no reason for including it, apart from it being a signal.

    I think Trump did exactly the right thing. It’s up to the people of Alabama to decide how they want to handle this.

    VaGentleman in reply to civil truth. | November 17, 2017 at 9:05 am

    If, knowing what he is accused of, the voters elect him, it would be a bad precedent for the Senate to try to expel him. Expelling a member for actions committed while a member can be justified. Overruling the voters of AL because you don’t think they made a good choice is not justifiable. There is no rule or law barring felons from serving if elected. An attempt by congress to ban him would be an usurpation of a power best left in the hands of the voters.

    Trump is exactly right. The accusations are troubling and should be carefully considered, but, if the voters elect him, that’s their right.

    Of course the voters get to decide. That is how our system of government works.

    If Moore gets elected and if real evidence is actually produced to corroborate the Corfman and Nelson claims, then the Senate can expel Moore and another election can be held. But, if Moore is forced out of the election and no such evidence is ever produced or, worse, evidence is produced which exonerates Moore, then Moore is unfairly penalized.

Two thoughts:

-we should have a poll of which politician or Hollywood celebrity will be accused next

-this movement could be manipulated to be a modern day Salem witch trial. Yes, it does seem that most of the people called out are guilty. But some have no clear substantiation, and Allinsky Rules suggest that this can be used as a weapon

    Ragspierre in reply to mochajava76. | November 16, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    I think your second observation has merit. It isn’t like we have no counter to that impulse, however. Despite what some apologists here have said, there are defenses to unfounded claims. The first is to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and to do it straight down the middle.

      “…there are defenses to unfounded claims. The first is to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and to do it straight down the middle.”

      Brilliant, “wheat from the chaff”, “do it straight down the middle”.

      From an attorney no less.

      Ah, yes, the Salomon option. If the two women had accepted that option, with the disputed baby, then everyone would have lost. Compromise is not always a good idea, especially where the innocent suffers along with the guilty.

      We have tried that, where the innocent victims of crimes are forced to share the blame for crimes committed against them by criminals. It doesn’t usually work out well, though it is still a staple of defense attorney tactics and strategy.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 17, 2017 at 11:33 am

        Nobody suggested “compromise”, liar.

        “…where the innocent victims of crimes are forced to share the blame for crimes committed against them by criminals.”

        That happens all the time, and “we” never have to try it. It’s part of the trauma for victims.

        It’s one very common and terrible component of sexual assault against a minor.

        But it also happens in sexual assaults generally, and especially by the powerful.

        As with Moore and Clinton.

          Well then, what did you mean by winnowing the wheat from the chaff and doing so right down the middle?

          Actually, in cases of sexual assault against minors, the victim is not forced to share the blame for the actions of the criminal. It is still a common practice for criminal defense attorneys to attempt to blame the victim in forcible sexual assault cases, but that is hardly the justice system at work. Now, not every sexual liaison is a forcible nor involuntary. In a non-forcible liaison where one party claims that it was not voluntary on their part, it becomes necessary to establish that certain factors exist. The first is whether the person is over the established age of statuory consent. If they are, then it has to be established that the person was incapable of consent and, if not, that the other person knew, or should have known that. If neither of these factor exist, then it has to be shown that the person acquiesced due to outside pressure, such as threats.

          We still have no idea if any of this even applies to Moore. WJ Clinton, on the other hand was clearly shown to have used intimidation in initially securing non-consensual sexual favors, as well as using physical force for that purpose. In several cases, involving Clinton, the women entered the relationship voluntarily. It was only after they had indicated that they were going to go public with the details, that coercion was used. So, in those cases, the sex was consensual and the woman bears as much responsibility for the liaison as the man. Intimidation to force them to keep quiet is another story.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 3:27 pm

          It’s fun to envision you slobbering over your keyboard to produce this kind of bullshit.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 4:20 pm

          rags,
          It’s fun to envision you slobbering over your keyboard trying to come up with a new insult to hide the fact that you can’t keep up with the adults on LI.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 4:32 pm

          VaPigman,

          Does this mean you endorse the word-salad bullshit of Mack45?

          Yee or no, please.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 5:34 pm

          Why would you think that my comment on your childish, insulting behavior would have anything to do with the arguments in Mac45’s post? They are 2 separate issues.

          Do you ever plan to grow up and take some pride in yourself and quit acting like an asshole?

          Yes or No, please.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 5:37 pm

          Still awaiting a direct answer, Pigman.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | November 18, 2017 at 10:25 am

          rags,
          Mac45 has expressed his opinion. You disagree. He has explained how he came to his conclusion(s). You have replied with childish insults. Until you engage in an adult conversation that refutes his opinion with arguments and reason, I can’t answer to which of you is correct. Asking Demanding that I do so is unreasonable.

          So, we are back at my question to you:

          Do you ever plan to grow up and take some pride in yourself and quit acting like an asshole?

          Yes or No, please.

Sensible statement, and a safe one. Of course those who chortle themselves silly whenever they fancy Trump’s blundered into another trap will be be disappointed. There’s no advantage in the President getting involved by adding yet another unfounded and essentially spurious opinion to this mess.

It’s pretty silly for Washington to make a fuss over l’affaire Moore. If it doesn’t bother the electorate in Alabama, then any major concern those heathens in Washington pretend to have is just for show.

But he hasn’t stepped aside. Gee, I guess that means the allegations weren’t true. I’m satisfied!

I very much doubt any of the ladies seeks “justice”.

They seem only to be interested in telling the truth, often only when asked.

Unless you take the nutter view they are all paid liars. What a stinking way to go through life…

    gmac124 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    “I very much doubt any of the ladies seeks “justice”.”

    This I agree with. If they are not looking for justice though what are they looking for? To tell the truth you suggest. I find that to be very insincere at the very least. I have never ran into anyone that would wait 30 plus years just to clear the air. So in other words what is in it for them? Of the 8 people 2 accuse him of illegal behavior and both leave me with questions. The second accuser with the revelations about having a divorce go before the Judge makes me really question her story. Whether she was in the court room with the Judge or not she could have been upset with the settlement and be trying to get even.

      Ragspierre in reply to gmac124. | November 17, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Why? She apparently reached an accommodation in the cause.

        gmac124 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 5:40 pm

        So in your fantasy world if they reach an accommodation they are now happy with the world and everything is perfect? What bullshit.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 5:52 pm

        In YOUR fantasy world, after reaching an accommodation she’s SO mad that she dummies up a sexual assault allegation, exposing herself to ALLLLLLLLL kinds of legal trouble) against the judge (who apparently only had this case assigned to him) to smear him. What he did is called in the legal field “magisterial”, meaning it was just pro forma.

        Really…??? That’s irrational, even by the bullshit on this thread.

          gmac124 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2017 at 6:33 pm

          That or her attorney blamed his poor negotiation skills on the Judge or 100’s of other factors over the last 40 years could have motivated her. It could be completely above the board but the fact that she had a case before the judge and the signature in the yearbook is similar to what would be on that document throws up a flag for me. One question, how long would a forensic examination of the yearbook take?

That was a remarkably considered and balance the statement. If this is the new Trump, I’m liking it.

‘Trump “still firmly believes” Moore should step aside if allegations are true.’

That is a big IF.

What does Trump believe Moore should do if the allegations are bogus?

As far as I am concerned, criticisms from those who never support Roy Moore should be treated with a heathy does of skepticism, just like 11th Hour smear campaigns!

An interesting fact has slipped out after talking to the DA lady that worked for Moore and whose initials are on all of his documents that are singed with a stamp. She began working for Moore in 1989 and her initials began appearing after that. The yearbook “Signature” by Moore that has the DA beside “His” signature happened in 1977. That would mean that this lady who is accusing Moore, probably use the signature on the Divorce decree she got under Moore in the late 80’s when he was a judge. There are no other signatures anywhere where he has used the initials DA. I do not have the answers but to me, this seems really fishy. Also, there is now a family member who says the 14-year old was paid to tell her story. With no cross-examination of her, her story should be ignored.

    Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | November 17, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    “That would mean that this lady who is accusing Moore, probably use (sic) the signature on the Divorce (sic) decree she got under Moore in the late 80’s when he was a judge.”

    Only if you’re a fantasist.

    “There are no other signatures anywhere where he has used the initials DA.”

    1. you know this HOW…???

    2. what makes you think there would be…???

I just love watching people try to twist all yearbook facts like pretzels in order to prove Moore wrote the note.

Some are so intelligent they believe “yearbooks” are issued multiple times per year. And they call those that point out the obvious “Stupid”.

Really, you can’t make this stuff up.

It is vital that we hear their stories. There should be no expectation, though, of a courtroom reckoning. While prosecution is practically impossible, that doesn’t absolve the culprits. Public office is a public trust, and weighing fitness for it is a matter of everyday discernment, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You know this when the unconvicted sociopath, fresh off his second or third harassment arrest, shows up on the doorstep looking to take your daughter out. Do you really need a jury to decide that one for you? No, they’ll never stand trial, but Franken should go away, and Roy Moore should stay away.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453874/al-franken-should-be-expelled-senate

As I’ve been saying…

    NR is FOS, just like you. It’s why you read that dog doo.

    I accuse every NR writer of sexual misconduct. Are they all going to step aside on mere accusations?

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 19, 2017 at 10:10 am

      No, and because you’re a hate-filled nutter. You aren’t credible.

      This is how you begin to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      See…???

        “No, and because you’re a hate-filled nutter.”

        LOL, your comments spread through the last year + would indicate you are a first rate hater.

        And a nut.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend