Memo to Trump supporters and their fellow Hillaryphobes

Oh, well, that's brilliant.

Eleven emails received, eleven sent. That's the daily equivalent you are so magnanimously willing to assume, because, you know, you're an American, and she's a woman, so innocent until proven guilty is called off, isn't it?

Your rejection of "America" is noted. Your betrayal of our Constitution and jurisprudence is noted.

Which is why you've already convicted in your own mind, because, you know, you're an American, and she's a woman, so innocent untilproven guilty is called off. You don't have any proof, but she's a woman so you pressume simnply because she's untrustworthy and, let's face it, you, Bowser, prefer the company and word of liars.

It strikes me as the same as Colin Powell's uninvestigated―because he's a man, isn't it? or is it just because he's ostensibly a Republican?―"negligence or just bad judgment".

Did the jury convict?

I don't accept your metaphor; establish its accuracy and propriety.

No more so than anyone else we don't prosecute. So, Bowser, if you're ever charged with a crime, do you want the court throwing out the case history in order to make things easier for the prosecution?

It only seems like a double standard to those like you who ignore history.

And it helps to compare comparable cases. You're comparing the server to deliberate reconnaissance and collection of forbidden information. If it seems like a double standard, perhaps you ought to explain why you're comparing the cases in the first place.

And this is how conservatives do it. There isn't an accurate sentence in your post, Bowser, except perhaps the ones about how you feel or what you believe, but even those are already known to be unreliable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which makes it much more secure than any government server.

Only by the deplorables.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He hasn't had much opportunity yet; the only government secrets he's been privy to are the briefings they give any presidential candidate.

Let's see how he did there:
==============================
Did Donald Trump Just Leak Classified Info On The Very First Day He Was Briefed?
by Busta Troll
July 29 2016

Shortly after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld made the decision to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia and return the remaining bases we had there back to the Saudi government, citing unrest in the region. Security would have been nearly impossible.

That’s the last anyone has heard about US military bases in the Arab nation other than some buzz from the BBC a few years back about a possible unmanned drone airstrip. Until today, that is. Donald Trump, speaking at a campaign event in Colorado Springs, mentioned how giving money to Saudi Arabia wasn’t going to help make America great again. Trump contends that if we’re going to have bases in Saudi Arabia to aid them with “protection,” we shouldn’t have to pay rent.

That poses a serious issue, as the Middle East columnist for the Wall Street Journal pointed out:

"If there is now a US military base in Saudi, it is classified and mentioning it should have legal consequences."

Being that Trump has never mentioned the issue before and today was the first day he received classified briefings, it brings the question, Is Donald Trump really that stupid? Is he seriously willing to risk the integrity of our intelligence and the safety of our soldiers for a good soundbite?

The answer, of course, is yes. Trump only cares about trump. So far this is speculation. Trump may very well just be inventing things again, but the timing and the sensitive subject matter make it awfully suspicious to say the least. Gopocalypse will keep you updated one way or the other.
===========================

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Harry Truman never graduated from university. (Trump's a gruduate of Wharton, one of America's best business schools.) Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer, spent a short time as a state legislator, part of a Senate term in which he didn't accomplish much, then was elected President. His main qualifications seemed to be that he was politically left and black, and that he speaks well. (He won a Nobel Prize for those things!) Trump actually has executive experience as a businessman, running large organizations.

Presidents are surrounded by advisers. What Presidents need is executive experience and the ability to make decisions.

Maybe. I've never met the man. Neither, I suppose, have you.

I'm a member of the increasingly endangered American middle class, and at least Trump pretends to favor policies that are in our interest. Even pretending is something new, after something like a quarter century in which nobody has seemed to even care about how we are being squeezed out of existence, between the power-elites up on top and those elites' ever-multiplying welfare-state clients down at the bottom.

I'm attracted to Trump, first, because he was the only candidate that spoke out about regaining control of the country's borders and the need for everyone to obey immigration laws, regardless of ethnicity. And second, because he was the only one who spoke out against trade-deals and business policies such as off-shoring entire industries and the continual de-industrialization of the country, that aren't in the best interests of the United States or its people. (Bernie Sanders spoke about the latter too, but only tangentially, as part of his general socialist hostility towards private enterprise.) And I'm attracted to Trump because he isn't a religious fundie and isn't all that aroused by the old religious right issues like abortion or gays.

I think that Trump is moving the Republican party in precisely the direction that it should move, even if he doesn't win this election. The "populism" that he represents is here to stay, just as it is in Europe.

Notice how Hillary has never attacked Trump on the issues. She can't. She can't argue that shipping millions of voters' jobs to Mexico or China is a good thing. She has even turned her back on proposed trade treaties that she once championed. She can't argue that favored ethnic groups should have immunity from US law. That's why her whole campaign revolves around Trump's personality.

I don't think that either Trump or Hillary are people what I'd want as a personal friend. Neither is somebody that I'd want to have a beer with.

Hillary is an elitist through-and-through, a habitue of exclusive parties in the Hamptons, almost regal in her bearing, somebody who shows visible discomfort mixing with the 'little-people' as she was forced to do campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa. When she held photo-ops showing her sitting in diners talking to 'regular people', it often turned out that the 'regular people' were carefully chosen party activists dressed-down for the occasion. She just doesn't mix with people like me, she probably thinks she would catch a disease.

What's more, she obviously thinks that the country's laws are for little-people too. (Necessary to keep the American people, who she apparently dismisses as a "basket of deplorables", under control. Obama's little people "clinging to their religion and their guns". It's troubling when a country's leaders express such contempt for the people they feel entitled to lead.)

She showed that when she flouted the regulations on handling classified information when she routed all her work e-mail through her home computer. (Anyone qualified to be President should have realized that a Secretary of State's work e-mails will inevitably contain sensitive information.) Clerical employees who do the same thing, taking secrets home on thumb-drives, are convicted of felonies and go to federal prison for a long time. So the laws once again apply differently for the better sort of person.

Hillary has always behaved like the Presidency is hers by right of inheritance, because she is named 'Clinton'. (Kind of like Jeb Bush in that regard.) What the United States needs is a President, not European-style lords, aristocrats and royals. (We fought a revolution to get away from that stuff.)

Now admittedly, Trump is a billionaire himself. He lives in Manhattan. He's not exactly a regular person himself. Maybe Trump is just 'talking-the-talk' and doesn't care any more for the middle class than Hillary does. It's certainly possible. But at least he expresses some awareness of the issues. This election, that's the best that any of us can hope for.

If Hillary wins, it will just be four more years of open borders while the media, academic, governmental and business elites further entrench their oligarchical position as the country's new ruling aristocracy.

 

This pretty much sums up what's wrong with your argument―xenophobia and pretending something is new.

Seriously, Yazata, ignorance just isn't a good pitch.

 

Holy shit, I knew that you were racist, but I never expected you to come out and be that racist. You started by mentioning the university careers of two presidential candidates, but somehow you omit Barack Obama's? What about the other qualifications, like his study and practice of constitutional law?

And how did that actually work out for anyone but Trump? How many times would Trump run the USA into bankruptcy?

 

Didn't you read his post? He mentioned that Obama is black, which is the most important factor to him. His other attributes pale in comparison (no pun intended.)

Well, to be fair, it took him 18 years to bankrupt six companies. So he might be able to manage only one in four years.

 

And the ability to not make a snap decision when they don't have the info.

They also need to be able to choose their advisors wisely. Take a look at Trump's advisors - not his PR crew, which is first rate, but his advisors on matters of policy, etc.

He doesn't know enough about the issues he will face to choose informed advisors, in the first place.

His cabinet - won't that be special: Rudy Giuliani; Chris Christie? Maybe Christie for head of FEMA, if he isn't in jail - he can use his control of emergency relief and intrusive government "maintenance" to extort favors.

His Court nominations: fundie screened for God's interpretation of the Constitution and billionaire screened for the appropriate take on tax law, because Trump will be completely at the mercy of the Republican Party "establishment" (the wingnut nearest his elbow when the topic comes up)- he hasn't got a clue how or why the Supreme Court functions.

And that's the rub, isn't it. That's the core issue. That's what you guys care about above all and before anything: being pandered to, stroked, told you're the real Americans, that your decades of bigotry and misogyny and meanness and clueless political fuckup (W? W&Cheney?) are somehow the strength of the country, and your President is one of you.

That's how W attained the Presidency, remember? He was a guy you wanted to have a beer with, Gore and Kerry were "elitists". Turns out that "high ability" and "looks like an elitist to anti-intellectuals after a few doses of Limbaugh skulldusting" are kind of the same thing, a lot of the time. Also, that voting for a dry drunk because he seems like a good beer buddy is maybe not a smart move.

Your "man of the people" approach had grown white American men, full adults, voting for a candy ass child of third generation inherited privilege over men of genuine accomplishment; a prancing, strutting, swaggering, smirking, draft dodging, sideline cheerleading, drug abusing, bankrupted, fumbletongued, physical coward and fuckup - over two actual and decorated combat veterans with years of hands on leadership and real accomplishment in the exact arena you were hiring for. And the consequences were exactly as predicted by the very same people you are once again not listening to - namely: disastrous.

Remember when he mimed looking under his desk - his Oval Office, Presidential desk, the one Franklin Roosevelt signed the declaration of war against Japan on - for the nonexistant WMDs he had sent the country to war over, as a joke? As lighthearted levity? Granted the number of US soldiers who had bled into the Iraqi sands was only in the hundreds at the time, and Iraqis themselves don't count, but still - - -

Now it's got you voting for a blatant charlatan, a State Fair pitchman with a mean streak and your credit card number, who loves you and is one of you and is sure to do right by you as soon as he figures out where the jewelry safe is on this Hindenburg - cuz he's got bills to pay, shylocks to mollify, that kind of life history.

Are you capable of learning from that kind of mistake?

No, he doesn't. None of his actual policies are in your interest, and he doesn't talk much about them - there isn't much in the way of policy in the Trump campaign anyway. Do you have any idea what his policies are? the ones he favors, I mean. I can tell you one right now: tax cuts for rich people. Trump is a firm believer in trickle down economics.

It's called fascism, and it never went away. It had to wait until those with direct experience of its previous incarnation in power had largely died off, is all.

 

Silly me, I had always kinda thought that the roads--as in, literally, the roads--were a site of confluence and agreement. For everything the U.S. does, and has done, wrong, the interstate highway system is actually pretty damn impressive (and, for the moment, I'm ignoring the rather nefarious ways for which it came to be). Have you ever tried to navigate the roadway systems anywhere in Europe?

And oddly, for all the fucked up shit of this election cycle, I'm somehow finding Trump's proposal (<-- link) even more bizarre. Did anyone truly not expect Trump to have argued that he couldn't have raped those women simply because they were too ugly? That was entirely in accordance with his character, and the mindsets of his ilk. But privatizing highways? Who the fuck is on board with this?

 

So what's the cause of Clinton's deep unpopularity? Gladwell says it's sexism, pure and simple.

"She is being penalized for having a series of traits that people find unacceptable in a woman," he said, noting the negative perception of Clinton predates her email and Benghazi scandals. "This goes back two decades now."

"To me, the most disturbing lesson about this election is that the United States is a good deal less open to women in positions of power than it would like to pretend that it is."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malcolm-gladwell-us-election-the-national-trump-clinton-1.3838449​

Yes no doubt about it she is seen as a ball breaker... something perhaps American males need if they wanna grow up.

"Terribly unwanted but desperately needed" sort of thingo. Like needles when you go to the dentist to get a tooth out.

 

This is why its a close race. She should have not been so honest. She shot herself right in the foot with religion. The horror. America isnt ready to hear that. She must be assuming her liberal progressive friends are representative of americans. Trump could win this thing as those religious right is still a sizeable majority.

But as far as little people, c'mon, trump is an elitist only. He is the snob of snobs of snobs. He is such a snob he is gaudy. If he defers at all, its because he would have to.

But the irony. A poster boy for patriarchy, and supremacism up against a female.

 

One wonders that if Trump loses would the Republican party have achieved the presidency with another less contentious candidate?

 

The part that is so stereotypical is how the red states vote with their professed moral conservative bullshit and that liberals are responsible for social moral decline rhetoric ad nauseum. This typical patriarchal, elitist, sexist, cheating/womanizing, dishonest, greedy, overly materialistic man is just oh so typical of the religious right's brand of flavor combo yet so far polar opposite from their dear lord christ almighty it would be funny if they werent so deceitful, the damn nefarious religious right. Its just so stereotypical, it always lands on red in blackjack with these people. Lmao.

 

Memo to Trump supporters: We shall now see if the country can digest what they have eaten.

I feel major heartburn coming on...

 

8

Not its computer security. Government computer security is not the responsibility of each separate Department on its own.

So soon we forget - eight years of W, and you still think Trump can't really be that bad.

I think you will have your "doubts", if real, better informed in a fairly short time. And you are not allowed to blame anyone else - not liberals, in particular. Like W, this guy is your baby.

 

Well Cthulhu won so there goes my sanity. I just want to thank the regressive left for this, thank those on the left that could not bit your tongue and vote for Clinton, sure she was basically Nixon, but even Nixon was not a insane demagogue moron. I want to thank all those on the left that had to make this election about what ever minority of a minority group's issue forgetting that the problem was fundamentally economics and alienating the majority of the electorate.

Oh I wish I was in a legalized pot state right now so bad!

 

Well at least we survived those eight years, well I mean hundreds of thousands of other people did not, but we did.

Excuse me I need another lorazepam now, but yes after 8 years of Bush we got a super-majority of the senate, we got the house and we got Obama, and the republicans got back a moron that paints pictures of himself in the shower. And if Trump is bad enough heck maybe we will do the same in only 4 years, shame about all those others that don't survive though.

 

Maybe he will happily surprise with trump grand miracles?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whats that melania going to do? Gaudily Gold-leaf every inch of the white house?