You are blaming the Democrats for the Republican's nomination of Trump? Good luck not looking silly on that one. So cover your eyes: maybe the Republican Party will go away, and all the slandermongers you have signed on with will grow a pair and start doing journalism into your ears.
Been there, done that. Katrina. Iraq. Crash. Post Palin. Post Romney. We've been living in that wasteland for decades now. Their psyche is pre-set for the necessary adjustments, needs only minor tweaks - Trump is not a new, aberrant, weird phenomenon. He's par for the Republican course. He doesn't look to be significantly different from Limbaugh or Gingrich, as Big Honcho Republican.
Interesting. I think what's taking place within the the Democratic party and the cronyism within the system much more concerning. I think that the evidence of the DOJ hindering an investigation into Hillary's activities very disturbing. The idea that there has been an uprising within the FBI because of the way the investigations have been handled is a good indicator of the state of affairs. I'm sick to my stomach with the realization that our government and media are desperately trying to drag Hillary's carcass over the finish line, despite what everyone knows. Hillary is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the system.
Except for the entire Republican Party establishment - currently a majority of the House and Senate and Supreme Court, two of the three branches of national government - and the great majority of the commercial radio and television news stations, who have been devoting so much time and favorable publicity to Republican Party efforts and Donald Trump in particular, and taking care to publicize and highlight each and every allegation against Clinton no matter how full of shit it was. Right?
So there is corruption in the government, and the FBI, a government agency, isn't corrupt? How likely is that? Why do you seem to trust them without question? Isn't it possible that they have their own partisan interests?
And yet you dismiss the fact that the CIA is using its power to try to swing the election to Trump. That sort of abuse of power doesn't even appear on your radar. You have very, very selective reading skills; essential for a modern republican. There has been no uprising. You have perfect Republican blinders on; you can "see" only what the Trump campaign (and its media support team) has fed to you. Rape, sexual abuse, pandering to our enemies, inciting violence and ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of our system of government are all fine to you; mere trivialities to be overlooked (or to be denied by slut-shaming the women who bring the accusations.) A government organization breaking the law to get Trump elected? Ignore. Trump supporters burning down a black church to intimidate voters? Overlook. Trump voters arrested for voting fraud? Change the channel, quick! But a WOMAN running for president? It makes you truly sick to your stomach.
Mod Note Bowser's post has been struck. Reason being, well, seriously Bowser, that was ghastly. If you cannot refer to a woman without being so vulgar about it, then really, you not only made Billvon's point for him about your blatant misogyny, but you just continued to out yourself and repulsing the rest of the members here. That was completely unacceptable on every level.
This election is trying to point out that corruption within government; Hillary, is far worse for the country and the global community, compared to bad manners and taboo words; Trump. Yet there are many in America , that seem to think the opposite is true. This is why other people from around the world, who see this insanity, are helping American citizens to see the corruption. If America elects corruption over rudeness, the world is in trouble. Electing Hillary means you forgive her corruption and thereby endorse her to take this to the next step. A president she can use Government to shake down nations, so Bill and Hillary can make a $billion a speech. Hillary, in her sales pitch to the Democrat base, tries to blur the line between legal and illegal, so her own illegality is blurred. For example, Trump made a distinction very early, about legal versus illegal immigration. He pointed out how it is not fair that the illegals get to cut the line and break the law, while the legal have to wait in line for several years. Hillary is illegally cutting the line via her own corruption; above the law. She is telling her base, that above the law is the same as playing by the rules; only immigrants and not two groups of immigrants. This comes down to religion. Hillary and liberals worship a strange god of sounds and noises; PC. If you make the wrong noise, like pointed out by Bell above, that is blasphemy against their god. Trump is a heretic in their religion of noises. Trump is about legal versus illegal, which is based on traditional morality of good and evil. In this religion, noises cannot hurt unless you are conditioned to let this be so. If you said the same insults, to someone of a different language, they will not know how to react to those noises, since they have not yet beeb conditioned to react like a trained seal. However, stealing and extortion can hurt anyone of any language since this is not a subjective god of conditioning but based on objectivity. The paradox is the democrats think they are the smartest people in the room, yet they many don't seem to be able to make this distinction. Or of they can make this distinction, but choose to ignore it, this is telling us, they are about lawlessness, with the god of noises there to train their uneducated base, to ignore when they do break the law.
"Hillary is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the system." Namely, getting things done, having reasonable debate on issues, and doing the business of government. If Republicans can't have their way, they want to shut everything down, thinking they can turn economic collapse and extreme dysfunction to their advantage. They are worse enemies to a functioning Democracy than Putin.
Yes. We think sexual assault, rape, fraud and racism is worse than being careless with email. And then hired illegal immigrants to work on his projects. He understands that law - he just violates it, because laws don't apply to him. "When you are a celebrity they let you get away with it." The only president in recent history who allowed illegals to cut the line and break the law was Reagan.
Well, if this election is about corruption as you have asserted, then Trump is an odd candidate for the anti-corruption ticket. There is only one candidate this election cycle who is being sued for fraud, and that't your candidate: The Donald. There is only one candidate which has eschewed transparency and again, it's your candidate: The Donald. There is only one candidate who has refused to disclose his financial statements, and once again, it's your candidate: The Donald. So I find it very perplexing for self described conservatives to accuse Hillary Clinton of corruption when she has been publicly and heavily scrutinized and reviewed for nearly 30 years. For nearly 30 years Republicans have falsely accuse Hillary of everything from simple malfeasance to serial murder and have used the considerable powers of the federal government to investigate her. If Hillary is as corrupt as Republicans claim her to be that over the course of nearly 30 years and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of public funds spent investigating her Republicans would have found at least a shred of evidence to support their many assertions of guilt. But they haven't. Unfortunately, this is just another case of Republicans using and abusing the power of the state to further their political goals. It's banana republic stuff. Hillary has disclosed 39 years of her tax returns. Trump has released not a single tax return. Moreover, he has refused to release any financial information. There is only one candidate who has been sued for fraud and faces an ongoing trial for fraud, and it's not Hillary. It's your candidate. It's The Donald. There is only one candidate whose charitable foundation has been found to have violated a number of laws, and that's your man "The Donald". There is only one candidate who wants to do business in one of the most corrupt countries in the world: Russia. And again, it's not Hillary. It's your man: The Donald. It's also interesting that the candidate who is supposed to be against corruption and has promised to "drain the swamp" had, up until a week ago, had no plans as to how he would fight corruption. And even then, his anti-corruption policies are sparse and are nothing more than a few warmed over failed Republican bandages at best and would likely make corruption worse. And how does any of that make sense? Where has Hillary every advocated anyone, much less illegal aliens, cut lines and break the law? Where is the evidence to back up this assertion? Something about the pot calling the kettle black seems apropos here.
What do you think of actual assault, though? What about all the illegal immigration labor that Trump used? What about all the mafia people that Trump has done business with? What about the blurred line between legal and illegal in Trump's tax avoidance? I'm guessing that you don't care about these because Trump, like you, hates Muslims, immigrants, and women. You might not want people to point out when you or other people say racist or sexist things, but people do still reject racism and misogyny. Calling this "PC" is an interesting tactic to attempt to mainstream racism and sexism, but I hope it won't work.
If we start with a basic idea variously iterated over the years, to rhetorically switch places with your opponent in order to claim their strengths and assigne your own weaknesses, we will find a strange portion of our answer. What's the question? Oh, right. For many of us it might be reflexive, so it may well have slipped past unnoticed compared to the rest of everything else, but has anyone else noticed how simplistic Trump's approach has been? But this is pretty much what we've been seeing and hearing from rank and file conservatives, now, for a while. It came to a head in the debate, when Trump was reduced to blithering, "No puppet, no puppet. You're the puppet!" It was a proper toddler tantrum. Interestingly, Pence's clumsy, guilt-laden denials and hideously clumsy attempt to drop a Reaganesque attitude was more accustomed to what we might have seen around here back in the days when our conservatives could at least purport to be trying. You know, kind of like how we have to keep lowering the discourse bar around here in order that conservatives can still have a place in the discussions. Like Wellwisher, sure, but what about the rest of 'em? If everybody just got on board and left conservatives to lie to themselves and each other, the rest of us could probably have some engaging and even useful discussions. • • • Yeah: The truth is quite anodyne, actually. The Wikileaks materials, allegedly stolen by Russians to help boost Donald Trump, in this case point to an email invitation to a dinner party hosted by artist Marina Abramovic, who has used all kinds of materials, including pig’s blood, in her work, including the provocative “Spirit Cooking” exhibitions. As the Huffington Post explained, “Although Abramovic created uncanny artworks under the label of ‘Spirit Cooking’ in the past, the dinner in question was simply that – dinner. Specifically, it was a reward for donors who had given the largest amount, $10,000 or more, to a Kickstarter campaign that Abramovic launched to fund a new art institute in New York’s Hudson Vallet.” And as it turns out, John Podesta didn’t respond to the invitation, didn’t attend the dinner, and hasn’t met the artist. So, to review, Marina Abramovic is neither a Satanist nor a practitioner of occult magic; John Podesta is neither a Satanist nor a practitioner of occult magic; the coverage in the conservative media was wrong; the dinner wasn’t a ritual; Podesta didn’t go to the perfectly normal dinner; and the artist said in a statement yesterday she’s “astonished and appalled that references to my work are being misrepresented in this way to use for political capital.” Even by 2016 standards, this one was pretty dumb. (Benen↱) Your (chortle!) "experiment in liberty"↑ is more a "demonstration of gullibility". Or, you know, you're not actually that stupid, but, rather, just another worthless troll. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "This Week in God, 11.5.16". msnbc. 5 November 2016. msnbc.com. 5 November 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2eyPi1Z Edit: Revise and extend my remarks (5 Nov. 2016, 13.35 PDT)
The fact that his own brother thought it would be something he would be interested in is, in itself, telling.
His own brother probably thought it was an invitation to a fundraising dinner for an art institute in the Hudson Valley. That's because it was. So what does that tell you?
