Trump ... the cowardly lion

For over a year Donald ‘the assassin’ Trump has campaigned for the office of the presidency of the United States on the claim that he is against illegal immigration.  He specifically fingers Mexico and Mexicans for being ‘criminals, rapists and drug dealers’.  He says he is going to build a wall that will keep Mexicans out, that, by some estimates, will cost $25-billion, plus the legal costs associated with taking the property of people who live on the land necessary for this.  He says he will force Mexico to pay for the wall.

This, his campaign centerpiece, is a direct slap in the face of Mexico and Mexicans, accounting for the hatred that Hispanics of all classes have for the ‘assassin-king of New York City’.  So, with such an anger pot boiling over, what does the ‘the assassin’ do when he has a chance to meet Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto?

He folds!  

After flying to Mexico City for a much-touted confrontation with Sr. Pena Nieto, at the latter’s invitation, he meets, talks and negotiates—because that’s what tough guys do, negotiate toughly—and with great anticipation we watch as spiffy Pena Nieto walks out onto the stage, his suit still unruffled, and Donald 'tough-guy' follows him with a meek and tired look on his face.

Sr. Pena Nieto:  I told Mr. Trump in no uncertain terms that Mexico would not pay for his wall.

Mr. Trump:  Oh…um, we didn’t discuss the wall.

Wait-a-fuckin-minute…you’ve been talking about this wall for over a year, it’s the centerpiece of your campaign rhetoric. You get your crowds to chant Build the Wall, over and over…and then Sr. Pena Nieto just told us he hit you with a right cross: No fuckin' wall, asshole!...and you tell us you didn’t discuss it?

WHAT A FOOKIN’ LIAR.  What was this trip all about?  What have been our expectations about this confrontation for over a year?  The President of Mexico just contradicted you and said you did discuss it, and the answer was NO.  And you expect us to believe you didn’t discuss it?  What would make you take such an absurd stance?

The answer is quite simple. I’m thinking we’ve got the greatest ‘bully-coward’ in history on our hands.  Remember Donald the name calling, walking, talking bully?  The guy who even insulted war heroes and said women were angry because they were menstruating?  The guy who mocked a paraplegic?   Isn’t he the cowardly lion who blustered and then ran away, in the Wizard of Oz?  I’m reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great American president:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy...

Donald ‘the cowardly lion’ Trump.  Look how low we have stooped?

Original Quill wrote:For over a year Donald ‘the assassin’ Trump has campaigned for the office of the presidency of the United States on the claim that he is against illegal immigration.  He specifically fingers Mexico and Mexicans for being ‘criminals, rapists and drug dealers’.  He says he is going to build a wall that will keep Mexicans out, that, by some estimates, will cost $25-billion, plus the legal costs associated with taking the property of people who live on the land necessary for this.  He says he will force Mexico to pay for the wall.

This, his campaign centerpiece, is a direct slap in the face of Mexico and Mexicans, accounting for the hatred that Hispanics of all classes have for the ‘assassin-king of New York City’.  So, with such an anger pot boiling over, what does the ‘the assassin’ do when he has a chance to meet Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto?

He folds!  

After flying to Mexico City for a much-touted confrontation with Sr. Pena Nieto, at the latter’s invitation, he meets, talks and negotiates—because that’s what tough guys do, negotiate toughly—and with great anticipation we watch as spiffy Pena Nieto walks out onto the stage, his suit still unruffled, and Donald 'tough-guy' follows him with a meek and tired look on his face.

Sr. Pena Nieto:  I told Mr. Trump in no uncertain terms that Mexico would not pay for his wall.

Mr. Trump:  Oh…um, we didn’t discuss the wall.

Wait-a-fuckin-minute…you’ve been talking about this wall for over a year, it’s the centerpiece of your campaign rhetoric. You get your crowds to chant Build the Wall, over and over…and then Sr. Pena Nieto just told us he hit you with a right cross: No fuckin' wall, asshole!...and you tell us you didn’t discuss it?

WHAT A FOOKIN’ LIAR.  What was this trip all about?  What have been our expectations about this confrontation for over a year?  The President of Mexico just contradicted you and said you did discuss it, and the answer was NO.  And you expect us to believe you didn’t discuss it?  What would make you take such an absurd stance?

The answer is quite simple.  I’m thinking we’ve got the greatest ‘bully-coward’ in history on our hands.  Remember Donald the name calling, walking, talking bully?  The guy who even insulted war heroes and said women were angry because they were menstruating?  The guy who mocked a paraplegic?   Isn’t he the cowardly lion who blustered and then ran away, in the Wizard of Oz?  I’m reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great American president:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy...

Donald ‘the cowardly lion’ Trump.  Look how low we have stooped?

You would think that with all the crap levelled at Obama (I think that he's been the best president the states has ever had) that a candidate would come forward worthy of the title "leader of the free world", but Trump the chump and crooked Clinton does not bode well for our future.

Sanders should have been given an opportunity, as an alternative to this madness!

This is a trial for the US, if you believe in those things.

Democrats believe in the people and their interests, while Republicans believe in special interests of privileged people.  In order to garner votes, as distinct from dollars, Republicans have to spread lies about circumstances and people.  Obama and Hillary have been the subject of those lies, but so have the Republicans themselves.

For, they have spread the lie that life is simple if you follow a few simple rules.  They don't believe black people face racism; they believe that black people didn't follow the rules about hard work.  They don't believe that sick people face their illnesses; they believe that sick people were not thrifty and prudent with their money (hence, they can't afford their care and health).  And they don't believe that the downtrodden were unjustly treated; they believe that the downtrodden were weak and deserved what they got.  These are the cons that the elite of the right have foisted upon the lower class right, and have tried to foist off on the rest of the people.

That's what we've got in the likes of Donald Trump.  Now, the test is for the American people...will they continue to believe the myths of the right and the misery it yields?  Will they continue to believe there is no such thing as racism, sickness and hardship; it's just an excuse?  Will they continue to believe that the only way is war, and bullying of all the so-called 'weaklings' who are easy pickings?

And the companion questions: Will they continue to believe there were weapons of mass destruction over there in Iraq?  Will they continue to believe Obama is a foreigner, and not born an American?  Will they continue to believe that there were death panels provided for in the ACA?  Will they continue to believe that Hillary did anything wrong in Benghazi, even though it was a war and war is hell (especially ones that they started)?  Will they continue to believe in emails from hell, even though they've found no espionage nor wrongdoing in any of them?

This election, America will either break the monopoly of the lie, or they will be drawn ever further in to the blue mist of sleep that is the RW.  If the monopoly is broken, there won't be bells and whistles...it will be a quiet life as usual.  But, if they continue to inhale the blue mist of RW phantasia, America will come to a rude awakening...perhaps with a Trump bang.

So, does this mean one could add cowardice, capriciousness or mendacity to his long list of flaws?
Heck just throw in all 3, just to save time!!

Democrats, for your own sakes you'd better make sure he does not win, remember that polls can be misleading.
This guy's madness must be taken seriously, it's no laughing matter .... not yet. ..... be patient, there will be plenty of time to laugh at him, when it's finally over.

Jules wrote:So, does this mean one could add cowardice, capriciousness or mendacity to his long list of flaws?
Heck just throw in all 3, just to save time!!

Well, I tried to make the point (two posts ago) that a bully is usually a coward. That was the significance of the Theodore Roosevelt quote. It's common knowledge...it's even on bumper stickers.

Jules wrote:Democrats, for your own sakes you'd better make sure he does not win, remember that polls can be misleading.
This guy's madness must be taken seriously, it's no laughing matter .... not yet. ..... be patient, there will be plenty of time to laugh at him, when it's finally over.

No one is taking him for granted.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:So, does this mean one could add cowardice, capriciousness or mendacity to his long list of flaws?
Heck just throw in all 3, just to save time!!

Well, I tried to make the point (two posts ago) that a bully is usually a coward.  That was the significance of the Theodore Roosevelt quote.  It's common knowledge...it's even on bumper stickers.

Jules wrote:Democrats, for your own sakes you'd better make sure he does not win, remember that polls can be misleading.
This guy's madness must be taken seriously, it's no laughing matter .... not yet. ..... be patient, there will be plenty of time to laugh at him, when it's finally over.

No one is taking him for granted.

Well said, Quill. Evil never sleeps.

veya_victaous wrote:

I was just glad Hillary didn't take a note from Game of Thrones and end the DNC by emerging naked from a burning Philadelphia Wells Fargo Center.

this has a really good point, If Trump is elected there is a very good chance a wall will be built and paid for by mexico...
..... and another wall will be built and paid for by Canada too

Looks like the democrat tactic is to keep crooked Hillary quiet, you don't hear a peep out of her, not a word on her policies, nothing, we know from wiki leaks that she was up to no good and that she stands for corporate wealth and the established elite.

Not much of a choice, looks like America will be stuck between a rock and a hard place!

scrat wrote:Looks like the democrat tactic is to keep crooked Hillary quiet, you don't hear a peep out of her, not a word on her policies, nothing, we know from wiki leaks that she was up to no good and that she stands for corporate wealth and the established elite.

Not much of a choice, looks like America will be stuck between a rock and a hard place!

Would America be better off by swimming in a shit pile?  You don't think Donald-the cowardly lion-Trump is going to engage in a clean, outright exchange of policies and philosophies do you?

Hillary's playing it smart.  If this is going to be a negative, smear campaign...why not go missing?  First, Hillary's record speaks for itself...she has been first lady (White House), Senator from New York (Congress), and Secretary of State (Cabinet), which also made her privy to the complete international and foreign policy scene of America.  She's a saavy woman, with a Yale law degree and substantial experience with potentially deceitful people.  

Second, Trump does all of her campaigning for her.  No matter how complex the media makes it, this race comes down to the difference between two numbers: Hilary's and Trump's.  As long as Trump is working so hard to keep his own number low, Hilary can relax and draft in his wake, on the last lap drop it down into third-gear, and punch it...ZOOM (that's a racing metaphor).

As an aside, that leaves more money for the down-ballot candidates in the DNC coffers.  

But the real point is, Hilary does not get bogged down with needless shit-flinging back-and-forth with incredibly ignorant people who truck and trade in RW lies.  If that's the game, who needs it?  If you had the choice of swimming in a toxic waste pond, or in your own clean backyard pool, which would you choose?

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:Looks like the democrat tactic is to keep crooked Hillary quiet, you don't hear a peep out of her, not a word on her policies, nothing, we know from wiki leaks that she was up to no good and that she stands for corporate wealth and the established elite.

Not much of a choice, looks like America will be stuck between a rock and a hard place!

Would America be better off by swimming in a shit pile?  You don't think Donald-the cowardly lion-Trump is going to engage in a clean, outright exchange of policies and philosophies do you?

Hillary's playing it smart.  If this is going to be a negative, smear campaign...why not go missing?  First, Hillary's record speaks for itself...she has been first lady (White House), Senator from New York (Congress), and Secretary of State (Cabinet), which also made her privy to the complete international and foreign policy scene of America.  She's a saavy woman, with a Yale law degree and substantial experience with potentially deceitful people.  

Second, Trump does all of her campaigning for her.  No matter how complex the media makes it, this race comes down to the difference between two numbers: Hilary's and Trump's.  As long as Trump is working so hard to keep his own number low, Hilary can relax and draft in his wake, on the last lap drop it down into third-gear, and punch it...ZOOM (that's a racing metaphor).

As an aside, that leaves more money for the down-ballot candidates in the DNC coffers.  

But the real point is, Hilary does not get bogged down with needless shit-flinging back-and-forth with incredibly ignorant people who truck and trade in RW lies.  If that's the game, who needs it?  If you had the choice of swimming in a toxic waste pond, or in your own clean backyard pool, which would you choose?

From what we can see this side of the pond Hilary certainly swims in the exact same pro fracking Pharma funding toxic pool, her record certainly speaks for itself, the fact that she's shrouded in criminality, corruption and mysterious disappearances some might observe that her criminality trumps Trump, all of which is of grave concern to the rest of us and let's not forget even so called democrat supporters were chanting "lock her up".

Crooked Hilary might be the lesser of two weevils but I don't see that much in it, other than the fact Trump can't help but run his mouth off, while Hilary is rather good at sliding into the shadows.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:For over a year Donald ‘the assassin’ Trump has campaigned for the office of the presidency of the United States on the claim that he is against illegal immigration.  He specifically fingers Mexico and Mexicans for being ‘criminals, rapists and drug dealers’.  He says he is going to build a wall that will keep Mexicans out, that, by some estimates, will cost $25-billion, plus the legal costs associated with taking the property of people who live on the land necessary for this.  He says he will force Mexico to pay for the wall.

This, his campaign centerpiece, is a direct slap in the face of Mexico and Mexicans, accounting for the hatred that Hispanics of all classes have for the ‘assassin-king of New York City’.  So, with such an anger pot boiling over, what does the ‘the assassin’ do when he has a chance to meet Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto?

He folds!  

After flying to Mexico City for a much-touted confrontation with Sr. Pena Nieto, at the latter’s invitation, he meets, talks and negotiates—because that’s what tough guys do, negotiate toughly—and with great anticipation we watch as spiffy Pena Nieto walks out onto the stage, his suit still unruffled, and Donald 'tough-guy' follows him with a meek and tired look on his face.

Sr. Pena Nieto:  I told Mr. Trump in no uncertain terms that Mexico would not pay for his wall.

Mr. Trump:  Oh…um, we didn’t discuss the wall.

Wait-a-fuckin-minute…you’ve been talking about this wall for over a year, it’s the centerpiece of your campaign rhetoric. You get your crowds to chant Build the Wall, over and over…and then Sr. Pena Nieto just told us he hit you with a right cross: No fuckin' wall, asshole!...and you tell us you didn’t discuss it?

WHAT A FOOKIN’ LIAR.  What was this trip all about?  What have been our expectations about this confrontation for over a year?  The President of Mexico just contradicted you and said you did discuss it, and the answer was NO.  And you expect us to believe you didn’t discuss it?  What would make you take such an absurd stance?

The answer is quite simple.  I’m thinking we’ve got the greatest ‘bully-coward’ in history on our hands.  Remember Donald the name calling, walking, talking bully?  The guy who even insulted war heroes and said women were angry because they were menstruating?  The guy who mocked a paraplegic?   Isn’t he the cowardly lion who blustered and then ran away, in the Wizard of Oz?  I’m reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great American president:


Donald ‘the cowardly lion’ Trump.  Look how low we have stooped?

You would think that with all the crap levelled at Obama (I think that he's been the best president the states has ever had) that a candidate would come forward worthy of the title "leader of the free world", but Trump the chump and crooked Clinton does not bode well for our future.

Sanders should have been given an opportunity, as an alternative to this madness!

Watching the 'mental-midget' = Cheeto-Jesus change his AGENDA regarding any of his 'I HAVE A PLAN' issues is about as fascinating as observing a rapid-fire-pin-ball-game on super drive!  Yet, when the game is over, and it has run it's course ...the observer is left with a deflated sensation of WTF, was that all I got for my quarter?

OMG, Scart ...I had such high hopes for your education status and then I read this > "crooked Clinton"   

HRC may not be your cup of tea, she may not be for everyone; but she's been for human rights and for the American base that has had NO VOICE since her days in college and if laying down with the political dogs and getting some FLEAS in the process -  
Yes, Indeed ...she's been balls to the wall to get things accomplished as best she could - while butting heads with some of the oldest MOSS BACKS in our political system!

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Would America be better off by swimming in a shit pile?  You don't think Donald-the cowardly lion-Trump is going to engage in a clean, outright exchange of policies and philosophies do you?

Hillary's playing it smart.  If this is going to be a negative, smear campaign...why not go missing?  First, Hillary's record speaks for itself...she has been first lady (White House), Senator from New York (Congress), and Secretary of State (Cabinet), which also made her privy to the complete international and foreign policy scene of America.  She's a saavy woman, with a Yale law degree and substantial experience with potentially deceitful people.  

Second, Trump does all of her campaigning for her.  No matter how complex the media makes it, this race comes down to the difference between two numbers: Hilary's and Trump's.  As long as Trump is working so hard to keep his own number low, Hilary can relax and draft in his wake, on the last lap drop it down into third-gear, and punch it...ZOOM (that's a racing metaphor).

As an aside, that leaves more money for the down-ballot candidates in the DNC coffers.  

But the real point is, Hilary does not get bogged down with needless shit-flinging back-and-forth with incredibly ignorant people who truck and trade in RW lies.  If that's the game, who needs it?  If you had the choice of swimming in a toxic waste pond, or in your own clean backyard pool, which would you choose?

From what we can see this side of the pond Hilary certainly swims in the exact same pro fracking Pharma funding toxic pool, her record certainly speaks for itself, the fact that she's shrouded in criminality, corruption and mysterious disappearances some might observe that her criminality trumps Trump, all of which is of grave concern to the rest of us and let's not forget even so called democrat supporters were chanting "lock her up".

Crooked Hilary might be the lesser of two weevils but I don't see that much in it, other than the fact Trump can't help but run his mouth off, while Hilary is rather good at sliding into the shadows.

Haha...if you are not a Trump supporter, you are the next-best thing for the RW.  You are a Trump believer.

The RW represents special interests in politics.  By contrast, the LW proceeds on the assumption that politics, and those involved, should be acting on the best interests of the general public.  I mention this because it creates an anomaly in the process, requiring some special moves.  For, the currency in politics, unlike the market, is votes.  The question for the RW becomes, how does one working against everyone's best interests go about garnering votes?

The RW has a general strategy it has perfected since the days of reform: Lie.  You wonder how the RW talked the world into a war in Iraq, and the entire turmoil in the middle east...they lied.  They told the world that Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and there were WMDs in Iraq.  At all levels, this is there grand strategy.  They lied about the death of Vince Foster when Hilary's husband was President, just to besmirch him.  They lied about swiftboats when John Kerry ran for president.  They lied about Obama, saying he was a Muslim, when he ran.  Indeed, they claimed Obama was not even American.  They lied about death panels in the Affordable Care Act, trying to mislead the voter against his/her own healthcare interests.  RW'rs lie.

Hilary Clinton presents a special case because for so long it was known that she was going to run for the presidency.  So, like the bad wolf, they got up a huge wind, and huffed and puffed, trying to blow her house in.  Amid a thousand petty things, particularly having to do with (get this) a charitable trust that she runs, they lied, and lied, and lied.  They lied about Benghazi, which was about a battle in a war they started by lying, fcs.  (War is hell, and if you go about starting one you will get back hell!  But forget that....)  BTW, nothing was left on Hillary's doorstep with Benghazi, so there was no there, there.  Then RW'rs lied about honorariums that Hillary received for speeches, and again they have no wrongdoing to point to.  Now they lie about phantom emails that came in from others to Hillary's email account.  Oh...none of Hillary's emails were a violation of the Espionage Act, which is the concern, but it's all abstract, and they pose their accusation in terms of...what if and suppose it happened...and nothing.  No, not one bad thing.

So you see, it's all RW bad guys trying to execute a grand strategy of look over there, not over here at what we're doing!  Don't pay attention the fact that we RW'rs are trying to steal you, the public, blind, but pay attention to the lies we spread to distract from our evil.

Now, I know Scrat, that you are not in league with these devils.  Lol.  But you effectively do their dirty work by believing their lies.  Hilary is not popular, primarily because she is female and brings to mind everyone's worst ex-wife.  As the RW narrative goes, Hilary is the shrew of the philandering husband, who only slept around because she wasn't giving out sex in her marital bed...as was his right!  You see the 'white male' ideology--that is the Trump base--coming through the rhetoric?  It's the backlash they are counting on.

This is how I read it, and I'm comfortable with my perspective.  Heck, she's gonna win anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
From what we can see this side of the pond Hilary certainly swims in the exact same pro fracking Pharma funding toxic pool, her record certainly speaks for itself, the fact that she's shrouded in criminality, corruption and mysterious disappearances some might observe that her criminality trumps Trump, all of which is of grave concern to the rest of us and let's not forget even so called democrat supporters were chanting "lock her up".

Crooked Hilary might be the lesser of two weevils but I don't see that much in it, other than the fact Trump can't help but run his mouth off, while Hilary is rather good at sliding into the shadows.

Haha...if you are not a Trump supporter, you are the next-best thing for the RW.  You are a Trump believer.

The RW represents special interests in politics.  By contrast, the LW proceeds on the assumption that politics, and those involved, should be acting on the best interests of the general interests.  I mention this because it creates an anomaly in the process, requiring some special moves.  For, the currency in politics, unlike the market, is votes.  The question for the RW becomes, how does one working against everyone's best interests go about garnering votes.

The RW has a general strategy it has perfected since the days of reform: Lie.  You wonder how the RW talked the world into a war in Iraq, and the entire turmoil in the middle east...they lied.  They told the world that Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and there were WMDs in Iraq.  At all levels, this is there grand strategy.  They lied about the death of Vince Foster when her husband was President, just to besmirch him.  They lied about swiftboats when John Kerry ran for president.  They lied about Obama, saying he was a Muslim, when he ran.  Indeed, they claimed Obama was not even American.  They lied about death panels in the Affordable Care Act, trying to mislead the voter against his/her own healthcare interests.  RW'rs lie.

Hilary Clinton presents a special case because for so long it was known that she was going to run for the presidency.  So, like the bad wolf, they got up a huge wind, and huffed and puffed, trying to blow her house in.  Amid a thousand petty things, particularly having to do with (get this) a charitable trust that she runs, they lied, and lied, and lied.  They lied about Benghazi, which was about a battle in a war they started by lying, fcs.  (War is hell, and if you go about starting one you will get back hell!  But forget that....)  BTW, nothing was left on Hillary's doorstep with Benghazi, so there was no there, there.  Then RW'rs lied about honorariums that Hillary received for speeches, and again they have no wrongdoing to point to.  Now they lie about phantom emails that came in from others to Hillary's email account.  Oh...none of Hillary's emails were a violation of the Espionage Act, which is the concern, but it's all abstract, and they pose their accusation in terms of...what if and suppose it happened...and nothing.  No, not one bad thing.

So you see, it's all RW bad guys trying to execute a grand strategy of look over there, not over here at what we're doing!  Don't pay attention the fact that we RW'rs are trying to steal you, the public, blind, but pay attention to the lies we spread to distract from our evil.

Now, I know Scrat, that you are not in league with these devils.  Lol.  But you effectively do their dirty work by believing their lies.  Hilary is not popular, primarily because she is female and brings to mind everyone's worst ex-wife.  As the RW narrative goes, Hilary is the shrew of the philandering husband, who only slept around because she wasn't giving out sex in her marital bed...as was his right!  You see the 'white male' ideology--that is the Trump base--coming through the rhetoric?  It's the backlash they are counting on.

This is how I read it, and I'm comfortable with my perspective.  Heck, she's gonna win anyway.

I am struggling with the idea that you seriously believe Hilary is LW, perhaps in America a candidate that supports corporate slavery, fracking, taking funds from Pharma industries and covering up crime is regarded as LW simply because he/she doesn't play the immigration and race card, I think in Britain she would be regarded as centre right, another one of the endless stream of neoliberal nonentities with meaningless policies that keep the machinations of the state functioning for the wealthy, beholden to the status quo, the elite, the establishment, the MSM and all its financial benefactors.

Trump is a far right nut jobbie, at least that's how he comes across and that's the reason why Hilary is so quiet, she knows her own campaign has nothing to offer but the same old same old, Sanders would have made a great president and the fact that she scuppered his ambitions, mocked his supporters, and now courts them with platitudes, may yet work against her.

Either way, whoever gets in, America is seriously divided and possibly on the brink of something far more dangerous.

4EVER2 wrote:

scrat wrote:
You would think that with all the crap levelled at Obama (I think that he's been the best president the states has ever had) that a candidate would come forward worthy of the title "leader of the free world", but Trump the chump and crooked Clinton does not bode well for our future.

Sanders should have been given an opportunity, as an alternative to this madness!

Watching the 'mental-midget' = Cheeto-Jesus change his AGENDA regarding any of his 'I HAVE A PLAN' issues is about as fascinating as observing a rapid-fire-pin-ball-game on super drive!  Yet, when the game is over, and it has run it's course ...the observer is left with a deflated sensation of WTF, was that all I got for my quarter?

OMG, Scart ...I had such high hopes for your education status and then I read this > "crooked Clinton"   

HRC may not be your cup of tea, she may not be for everyone; but she's been for human rights and for the American base that has had NO VOICE since her days in college and if laying down with the political dogs and getting some FLEAS in the process -  
Yes, Indeed ...she's been balls to the wall to get things accomplished as best she could - while butting heads with some of the oldest MOSS BACKS in our political system!

Sorry to disappoint, I'd like to think Hilary has more to offer, I just doubt her integrity and motives.

Can't believe I'm saying this but that post is spot on scrat.
I think Hilary is an awful alternative to Trump, and he is dangerously bad.

eddie wrote:Can't believe I'm saying this but that post is spot on scrat.
I think Hilary is an awful alternative to Trump, and he is dangerously bad.

Thank you special Eds.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...if you are not a Trump supporter, you are the next-best thing for the RW.  You are a Trump believer.

The RW represents special interests in politics.  By contrast, the LW proceeds on the assumption that politics, and those involved, should be acting on the best interests of the general interests.  I mention this because it creates an anomaly in the process, requiring some special moves.  For, the currency in politics, unlike the market, is votes.  The question for the RW becomes, how does one working against everyone's best interests go about garnering votes.

The RW has a general strategy it has perfected since the days of reform: Lie.  You wonder how the RW talked the world into a war in Iraq, and the entire turmoil in the middle east...they lied.  They told the world that Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and there were WMDs in Iraq.  At all levels, this is there grand strategy.  They lied about the death of Vince Foster when her husband was President, just to besmirch him.  They lied about swiftboats when John Kerry ran for president.  They lied about Obama, saying he was a Muslim, when he ran.  Indeed, they claimed Obama was not even American.  They lied about death panels in the Affordable Care Act, trying to mislead the voter against his/her own healthcare interests.  RW'rs lie.

Hilary Clinton presents a special case because for so long it was known that she was going to run for the presidency.  So, like the bad wolf, they got up a huge wind, and huffed and puffed, trying to blow her house in.  Amid a thousand petty things, particularly having to do with (get this) a charitable trust that she runs, they lied, and lied, and lied.  They lied about Benghazi, which was about a battle in a war they started by lying, fcs.  (War is hell, and if you go about starting one you will get back hell!  But forget that....)  BTW, nothing was left on Hillary's doorstep with Benghazi, so there was no there, there.  Then RW'rs lied about honorariums that Hillary received for speeches, and again they have no wrongdoing to point to.  Now they lie about phantom emails that came in from others to Hillary's email account.  Oh...none of Hillary's emails were a violation of the Espionage Act, which is the concern, but it's all abstract, and they pose their accusation in terms of...what if and suppose it happened...and nothing.  No, not one bad thing.

So you see, it's all RW bad guys trying to execute a grand strategy of look over there, not over here at what we're doing!  Don't pay attention the fact that we RW'rs are trying to steal you, the public, blind, but pay attention to the lies we spread to distract from our evil.

Now, I know Scrat, that you are not in league with these devils.  Lol.  But you effectively do their dirty work by believing their lies.  Hilary is not popular, primarily because she is female and brings to mind everyone's worst ex-wife.  As the RW narrative goes, Hilary is the shrew of the philandering husband, who only slept around because she wasn't giving out sex in her marital bed...as was his right!  You see the 'white male' ideology--that is the Trump base--coming through the rhetoric?  It's the backlash they are counting on.

This is how I read it, and I'm comfortable with my perspective.  Heck, she's gonna win anyway.

I am struggling with idea that you seriously believe Hilary is LW, perhaps in America a candidate that supports corporate slavery, fracking, taking funds from Pharma industries and covering up crime is regarded as LW simply because he/she doesn't play the immigration and race card, I think in Britain she would be regarded as centre right, another one of the endless stream of neoliberal nonentities with meaningless policies that keep the machinations of the state functioning for the wealthy, beholden to the status quo, the elite, the establishment, the MSM and all its financial benefactors.

Trump is a far right nut jobbie, at least that's how he comes across and that's the reason why Hilary is so quiet, she knows her own campaign has nothing to offer but the same old same old, Sanders would have made a great president and the fact that she scuppered his ambitions, mocked his supporters, and now courts them with platitudes, may yet work against her.

Either way, whoever gets in, America is seriously divided and possibly on the brink of something far more dangerous.

Yeah...I don't have the problem that you have with Hilary. Trump, however, is as you describe him.

Really, when RW'rs employ their strategy of weaving lies, they usually abandon them just as quickly when they fall through. That's what happened with the Vince Foster lie. That's what happened with the swiftboat lie. That's what happened with the Benghazi lie. That's what is happening to the email lie. The public is finding out, as I say, there is no there, there.

Occasionally, when the RW lies are called, the results backfire on the Republicans. Their lie about WMD's in Iraq (and the resultant longest war in America history) has left such a bitter taste in the public's mouth that the Republicans haven't made any political headway since. The public disgust and confusion has reduced the Republicans to Trump, as the result. I think (hope??) it's the end of the Republican Party.

There may be some repercussions as a result of the US becoming a one-party system, but the problems with the Republican Party--and the lies, wars, kidnapping, rapes, torture and child-killings they reap--far outweigh that. So we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but in the meantime there will be no love lost when Trump and the Republican Party are defeated this November.

Quill are you voting for Hilary because you always intended to, or because you're keeping Trump out of office?

**WARNING**
I see a repetitive goading coming your direction, Quill. 
I suppose all of those other 8+ topic discussions we've had over this very
same HRC issue and 'why are your voting for her', your justification just
hasn't stuck
So now that there's a new member for Eddie to try to impress, this topic
needs another trashing

eddie wrote:Quill are you voting for Hilary because you always intended to, or because you're keeping Trump out of office?

I've never considered voting Republican.  At stake is not only who becomes president, but who takes control of the Supreme Court, who conducts US diplomacy, restoration of budget cuts, and whether there will be another war with yet more military kidnapping, rape, torture and baby-killing.

Also, concomitant with the reduction in needless military spending, I would hope in the next term we may finally implement a comprehensive socialized medicine plan in the US.  The military only takes lives...a paid-for healthcare system would save lives, and become the true 'defense department'.

4EVER2 wrote:
**WARNING**
I see a repetitive goading coming your direction, Quill. 
I suppose all of those other 8+ topic discussions we've had over this very
same HRC issue and 'why are your voting for her', your justification just
hasn't stuck
So now that there's a new member for Eddie to try to impress, this topic
needs another trashing

Oh do shut up 4ever. Your hatred is wearing thin now and I've known scrat for years and we don't get on that great anyway.

I was asking Quill because I was genuinely interested in his answer.
He tends to stick to answering the post, not the poster, even if he and I aren't getting along.
You'd do well to learn from him.

Now, put your anger back in it's box. You're the only one interested in carrying on a war.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill are you voting for Hilary because you always intended to, or because you're keeping Trump out of office?

I've never considered voting Republican.  At stake is not only who becomes president, but who takes control of the Supreme Court, who conducts US diplomacy, restoration of budget cuts, and whether there will be another war with yet more military kidnapping, rape, torture and baby-killing.

Also, concomitant with the reduction in needless military spending, I would hope in the next term we may finally implement a comprehensive socialized medicine plan in the US.  The military only takes lives...a paid-for healthcare system would save lives, and become the true 'defense department'.

Yes I know all that, what I'm asking is, was Hilary kind of on your radar anyway, as someone you were considering?

Oh, I'm far from 'ANGRY' but then you'd be unable to COMPREHEND THAT EMOTION ...it's your redundant questioning Quills position about HRC and his affirmation to your numerous times that is so very telling!
A.) your on yet another coy mission of goading
B.) you just can't MOVE THE FUCK on from your vile hatred of HRC
C.) you are trying to impress Scrat as I suspect and have watched you twirl and dance this routine before!

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
I am struggling with idea that you seriously believe Hilary is LW, perhaps in America a candidate that supports corporate slavery, fracking, taking funds from Pharma industries and covering up crime is regarded as LW simply because he/she doesn't play the immigration and race card, I think in Britain she would be regarded as centre right, another one of the endless stream of neoliberal nonentities with meaningless policies that keep the machinations of the state functioning for the wealthy, beholden to the status quo, the elite, the establishment, the MSM and all its financial benefactors.

Trump is a far right nut jobbie, at least that's how he comes across and that's the reason why Hilary is so quiet, she knows her own campaign has nothing to offer but the same old same old, Sanders would have made a great president and the fact that she scuppered his ambitions, mocked his supporters, and now courts them with platitudes, may yet work against her.

Either way, whoever gets in, America is seriously divided and possibly on the brink of something far more dangerous.

Yeah...I don't have the problem that you have with Hilary.  Trump, however, is as you describe him.

Really, when RW'rs employ their strategy of weaving lies, they usually abandon them just as quickly when they fall through.  That's what happened with the Vince Foster lie.  That's what happened with the swiftboat lie.  That's what happened with the Benghazi lie.  That's what is happening to the email lie.  The public is finding out, as I say, there is no there, there.

Occasionally, when the RW lies are called, the results backfire on the Republicans.  Their lie about WMD's in Iraq (and the resultant longest war in America history) has left such a bitter taste in the public's mouth that the Republicans haven't made any political headway since.  The public disgust and confusion has reduced the Republicans to Trump, as the result.  I think (hope??) it's the end of the Republican Party.

There may be some repercussions as a result of the US becoming a one-party system, but the problems with the Republican Party--and the lies, wars, kidnapping, rapes, torture and child-killings they reap--far outweigh that.  So we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but in the meantime there will be no love lost when Trump and the Republican Party are defeated this November.

Hilary has the potential to make America the shining light it should be, the first female to lead the most powerful nation on this planet, a great opportunity to implement universal health care, to end war, poverty and suffering, but her record in office and her acts of criminality counter much of that, I just don't see her as the safe pair of hands you do, I would gladly be proved wrong.

4EVER2 wrote:Oh, I'm far from 'ANGRY' but then you'd be unable to COMPREHEND THAT EMOTION ...it's your redundant questioning Quills position about HRC and his affirmation to your numerous times that is so very telling!
A.) your on yet another coy mission of goading
B.) you just can't MOVE THE FUCK on from your vile hatred of HRC
C.) you are trying to impress Scrat as I suspect and have watched you twirl and dance this routine before!

Quel bel homme que vous etes!

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yeah...I don't have the problem that you have with Hilary.  Trump, however, is as you describe him.

Really, when RW'rs employ their strategy of weaving lies, they usually abandon them just as quickly when they fall through.  That's what happened with the Vince Foster lie.  That's what happened with the swiftboat lie.  That's what happened with the Benghazi lie.  That's what is happening to the email lie.  The public is finding out, as I say, there is no there, there.

Occasionally, when the RW lies are called, the results backfire on the Republicans.  Their lie about WMD's in Iraq (and the resultant longest war in America history) has left such a bitter taste in the public's mouth that the Republicans haven't made any political headway since.  The public disgust and confusion has reduced the Republicans to Trump, as the result.  I think (hope??) it's the end of the Republican Party.

There may be some repercussions as a result of the US becoming a one-party system, but the problems with the Republican Party--and the lies, wars, kidnapping, rapes, torture and child-killings they reap--far outweigh that.  So we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but in the meantime there will be no love lost when Trump and the Republican Party are defeated this November.

Sorry to disappoint, I'd like to think Hilary has more to offer, I just doubt her integrity and motives.
*****************
Hilary has the potential to make America the shining light it should be, the first female to lead the most powerful nation on this planet, a great opportunity to implement universal health care, to end war, poverty and suffering, but her record in office and her acts of criminality counter much of that, I just don't see her as the safe pair of hands you do, I would gladly be proved wrong.

I've combined your posts as to skip over the redundant child; but if you really want to do some reading and see what/where we've had some very interesting discussions regarding this potential POTUS {since my membership date} and I'm sure Quill has been involved far longer ...up there in the search box > type in her name!  You'll have a lot of topics pop up that have covered the entire gambit of issues and redundant questions posed to all of us regarding HRC! 
There are articles and links and bio's galore ...we the voting Americans on here do our research and know our candidates; we do not take our voting lightly!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've never considered voting Republican.  At stake is not only who becomes president, but who takes control of the Supreme Court, who conducts US diplomacy, restoration of budget cuts, and whether there will be another war with yet more military kidnapping, rape, torture and baby-killing.

Also, concomitant with the reduction in needless military spending, I would hope in the next term we may finally implement a comprehensive socialized medicine plan in the US.  The military only takes lives...a paid-for healthcare system would save lives, and become the true 'defense department'.

Yes I know all that, what I'm asking is, was Hilary kind of on your radar anyway, as someone you were considering?

That's a difficult question to answer. It's kinda like asking, were you anticipating morning to come today?

So, taking into consideration that Hilary has been the expected candidate in 2016, ever since 2008, I don't know if it was a choice or an expectation. Am I pleased that she was/is the expectation? I would say, Yes.

I am not an ancient white male, who has an inbred hatred of females. To the contrary, having worked in an academic environment in which women have excelled for eons, I am completely indifferent and expectant that 50% of the superior intellects would be female.

Hilary is simply the best and most-prepared candidate not only in the race, but in the country. Hilary served in the White House, then in the Senate, then in the Cabinet, and now as a world traveler and peacemaker. No question, she is the best equiped.

I do not put any stock in the Republican lies that they have heaped on Clinton. So, taking stock of Hilary vs. Trump as of today, Hilary is the best.

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah...I don't have the problem that you have with Hilary.  Trump, however, is as you describe him.

Really, when RW'rs employ their strategy of weaving lies, they usually abandon them just as quickly when they fall through.  That's what happened with the Vince Foster lie.  That's what happened with the swiftboat lie.  That's what happened with the Benghazi lie.  That's what is happening to the email lie.  The public is finding out, as I say, there is no there, there.

Occasionally, when the RW lies are called, the results backfire on the Republicans.  Their lie about WMD's in Iraq (and the resultant longest war in America history) has left such a bitter taste in the public's mouth that the Republicans haven't made any political headway since.  The public disgust and confusion has reduced the Republicans to Trump, as the result.  I think (hope??) it's the end of the Republican Party.

There may be some repercussions as a result of the US becoming a one-party system, but the problems with the Republican Party--and the lies, wars, kidnapping, rapes, torture and child-killings they reap--far outweigh that.  So we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but in the meantime there will be no love lost when Trump and the Republican Party are defeated this November.

Hilary has the potential to make America the shining light it should be, the first female to lead the most powerful nation on this planet, a great opportunity to implement universal health care, to end war, poverty and suffering, but her record in office and her acts of criminality counter much of that, I just don't see her as the safe pair of hands you do, I would gladly be proved wrong.

I don't see the potential in Hillary to make America a shining light.  She has none of the charisma, nor the cunning that a Barak Obama has.  Hilary is a policy wonk, and generally they don't make the best leaders, like a Kennedy, a Reagan or an Obama.  But she fits into the role at the time.  We don't need a 'war president' like GWB fancied himself.  As long as we don't mess around with the two factions of Islam, we don't need to play mediator.  And, we don't need a Melania 'the escort' Trump to parade around a beautiful presence.  We need...well, a policy wonk.

I don't put any credence in your claim of "criminality" attributed to Hilary, any more that I would put credence in a claim of WMDs in Iraq today.  It's just a drawer full of lies that Republicans have invented, and have been debunked to my satisfaction already.

But I'm not going to obsess because you believe them.  Lots of people believe in Donald Trump too, and as long as he loses I don't mind.  It's expected that not everyone will believe the same things that I do.  As long as America gets the final outcome right, I'm tolerant of differences.

Thank you for answering Quill. There was no trap as has been suggested - I simply had never asked you if she was a consideration before.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
Hilary has the potential to make America the shining light it should be, the first female to lead the most powerful nation on this planet, a great opportunity to implement universal health care, to end war, poverty and suffering, but her record in office and her acts of criminality counter much of that, I just don't see her as the safe pair of hands you do, I would gladly be proved wrong.

I don't see the potential in Hillary to make America a shining light.  She has none of the charisma, nor the cunning that a Barak Obama has.  Hilary is a policy wonk, and generally they don't make the best leaders, like a Kennedy, a Reagan or an Obama.  But she fits into the role at the time.  We don't need a 'war president' like GWB fancied himself.  As long as we don't mess around with the two factions of Islam, we don't need to play mediator.  And, we don't need a Melania 'the escort' Trump to parade around a beautiful presence.  We need...well, a policy wonk.

I don't put any credence in your claim of "criminality" attributed to Hilary, any more that I would put credence in a claim of WMDs in Iraq today.  It's just a drawer full of lies that Republicans have invented, and have been debunked to my satisfaction already.

But I'm not going to obsess because you believe them.  Lots of people believe in Donald Trump too, and as long as he loses I don't mind.  It's expected that not everyone will believe the same things that I do.  As long as America gets the final outcome right, I'm tolerant of differences.

Whether you or I see Hilary as a potential shining light is immaterial, as far as I can remember you've never had a female lead your nation, the significance of that in itself is a great achievement and some merit towards the political advancement of America, as it lags behind so many nations on equality and health care, charisma is meaningless without substance and the fact that she's so far avoided procecution points to the fact she's far more cunning than Obama, perhaps even more cunning than her husband although she has some distance to travel in order to reach the giddy heights of Nixon, and as for her non war credentials, well in reality they don't exist she's made a pretty Buck from arms manufacturers, I find your faith in her innocence somewhat naive to say the least, she's up to her neck in corruption, you can see a certain (nuclear Armageddon) madness in her eyes, her criminality is deeply disturbing and could eventually lead to her impeachment.

Your attempt to differentiate between Trump the Chump and Crooked Hilary is highly entertaining, on criminality I don't see much more than a cigarette paper between them even democrats were shouting "lock her up" something you've conveniently ignored.

Hilary could be so much more, but much of this has already been undermined before she enters office, that's of course assuming that she will enter office.

eddie wrote:Quill are you voting for Hilary because you always intended to, or because you're keeping Trump out of office?

Here's one of the many - many - many repetitive times we've kicked this exact issue around for you and just because you need to reword the way you phrase YOUR redundant questions ...doesn't mean it hasn't been asked and answered many times over!

Re: Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton For President
 by Original Quill on Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:17 am

eddie wrote:Sorry but Clinton is a liar and a fraud.
The only reason she will be voted for is because the other candidate isn't liked.

She isn't a good woman. I've said it from the beginning. Her husband was a slimey shit and she is slimey by association and the fact she lay down with him after he spattered Lewinksy's dress....tells me she lied to him too. And herself.

Don't trust liars. And don't trust a highly independent businesswomen who can't work emails!

I disagree.  The Republicans have done a great job over the past two-years of maligning her.  Obviously, you have bought into it.

In all of the Repuglican criticisms of her, there is no there, there.  Benghazi, emails, all of it...it's all "imaginary stuff", as Bill Maher points out.  Benghazi?  Read my lips...it was a war, one that the Repugs started.  People die in wars...where the fuck have you conservatives been???  Emails?  Nothing classified ever got out.  Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice, both Republicans, used a private server...what a bunch of total bullshit about nothing.

This relates to what I have been saying for decades: Republicans lie.  They don't do anything productive.  They don't govern.  They don't plan.  They don't design.  They don't pass legislation.  All they do is dig up dirt to churn into mud and sling.  If they are creative at all, it is to make wars and kill babies.  Otherwise, it's just one investigative committee after another, all generating lies.  

Even you Eds, I have never heard you articulate one thing wrong about Hillary...the best I've ever heard from you is you don't like her because her husband is a philanderer.  And that's her husband, fgs...she's the victim.

So it all boils down to: you don't like her.  No reason for that.  Just a form of pre-judgment, or that is to say, prejudice.  To be the target of Republican lies--my book is entitled Why Elephants Lie--makes her my number one favorite, under the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  It makes me want to go out and campaign for her all the more.

And that was only the beginning of your interjection ...but it only got more entertainin from that point forward! LOL

Awwww, that power to remember and utilize the brain ...it's a wonderful tool and quite effectual in a decent adult discussion too

4ever you are really repetitive.

She's also fucking nuts!

eddie wrote:4ever you are really repetitive.

And because I remember how many times WE all have explained OUR POV regarding HRC to you ...oh, ya ...it's well ingrained in my memory banks!  Been there done that with you and this HRC conversation just a few too many times

BTW - good to see you admonishing your good ole boy for his Parachute attack ...but naaa, that would make me think you could be a MODERATOR!

Like you've threatened WYWolfie all those many times ...never any warning threats against this type of crap!   Just stony silence~~~

What  are you wittering on about? Do you realise how childish you sound?

My hypocrite thread was DAYS AGO. Grow up. You sound absolutely fucking barmy at the moment.

And another thread ruined by ridiculous behaviour.
If posters have a complaint - read back and see who derailed the thread with utter useless attacks.

THREAD LOCKED.

Well done 4ever.