- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
Still better than the hag
- Thread starter Woodson Bible & Guns
- Start date
Still better than the hag
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
Not good enough.
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 22
That fucker.
It won't be long before he's offering everyone a free ice cream cone.Or, more likely, borscht! Huge bowls of delicious borscht from our comrades in Russia who love us! Borscht for all!
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
I'd rather take my chances with him than have the entire nation collapse under the most corrupt, inept leadership ever
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
That fucker.
Or, more likely, borscht! Huge bowls of delicious borscht from our comrades in Russia who love us! Borscht for all!
Somebody offered free cell phones
- Messages
- 21,399
- Reaction score
- 3,794
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
Luckily, I don't have to decide between a sociopath and a corrupt, inept leader. You go on pretending Trump is a true conservative and that you're not selling your soul by backing him. Pretend that you'll have a clear conscience just cause "He isn't Hillary," when he's living his authoritarian wet-dream in the White House.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
I've never said he was. I know he isn't, that's why I didn't support him in the primary.
But there's two choices in this election, one of them is the most corrupt piece of shit that's probably ever run for any office, and will assuredly install extremely liberal judges to the SCOTUS. The other at least has some ideas I can support and I do believe he will nominate judges that I agree with.
Carl Icahn: Here's why I'm supporting Trump for president
Jeff Cox,CNBC 13 hours ago
A Donald Trump presidency would see a more robust business climate through fewer regulations and an economy that would grow faster with more people working, according to Carl Icahn's view of the political world.
Icahn has been public with his Trump support, and elaborated Tuesday on why he is backing the billionaire businessman.
"If you look ahead four years or three years even, if Trump gets elected this economy will be a lot better of than if Hillary is elected," Icahn said at the Delivering Alpha conference presented by CNBC and Institutional Investor.
"There's a lot of problems I think what she wants to bring in — more government and bigger government," he added.
Icahn spoke at length about business regulation in particular, relating an anecdote in which he butted heads with environmental restrictions.
Clinton, he said, professes to support businesses but then talks about increasing taxes and regulation.
"Trump, on the other hand, will say, hey I'm going to change the regulatory agencies," Icahn said.
Wall Street has been shoveling money into the Clinton campaign, and recently some high-profile names have given her public support on the belief that the Democrat will create a more stable economy.
"They're wrong, because you need to do something about productivity in this country," Icahn said. "You don't have jobs and you don't have people working, sooner or later this blows up, and it blows up in so many different fashions."
The economy, despite slow overall growth that hasn't exceeded 3 percent for a calendar year since the 2008 financial crisis, has seen more than 12 million new jobs during the period. However, wage growth has been elusive and productivity has been flat.
Jeff Cox,CNBC 13 hours ago
A Donald Trump presidency would see a more robust business climate through fewer regulations and an economy that would grow faster with more people working, according to Carl Icahn's view of the political world.
Icahn has been public with his Trump support, and elaborated Tuesday on why he is backing the billionaire businessman.
"If you look ahead four years or three years even, if Trump gets elected this economy will be a lot better of than if Hillary is elected," Icahn said at the Delivering Alpha conference presented by CNBC and Institutional Investor.
"There's a lot of problems I think what she wants to bring in — more government and bigger government," he added.
Icahn spoke at length about business regulation in particular, relating an anecdote in which he butted heads with environmental restrictions.
Clinton, he said, professes to support businesses but then talks about increasing taxes and regulation.
"Trump, on the other hand, will say, hey I'm going to change the regulatory agencies," Icahn said.
Wall Street has been shoveling money into the Clinton campaign, and recently some high-profile names have given her public support on the belief that the Democrat will create a more stable economy.
"They're wrong, because you need to do something about productivity in this country," Icahn said. "You don't have jobs and you don't have people working, sooner or later this blows up, and it blows up in so many different fashions."
The economy, despite slow overall growth that hasn't exceeded 3 percent for a calendar year since the 2008 financial crisis, has seen more than 12 million new jobs during the period. However, wage growth has been elusive and productivity has been flat.
Hillary collapse coverage reveals absurdity of biased media
By Michael Goodwin
It is said that history turns on small hinges, and now maybe the presidential race does, too. For hinges don’t get much smaller than the 20-second video of Hillary Clinton collapsing and being lifted into her security *vehicle.
Without it, Americans would still be clueless about Clinton’s serious health issues. Because of it, she was forced to admit she has pneumonia.
Because they were scooped by the video, an army of journalists is now under pressure to report facts instead of covering them up. Most important, voters got fresh proof that Clinton’s first instinct is to lie, and then lie again.
Those are just some of the immediate aftershocks of that little video. If my hunch is correct, the fallout is just beginning and eventually will result in voters learning the whole truth of Clinton’s condition.
Start with the fact that she *humiliated the so-called best and brightest news organizations. Despite her unshakable reputation for being dishonest and untrustworthy, Clinton nonetheless managed to snooker most mainstream outlets into believing that her coughing fits were just allergies.
Those organizations were so gullible that they created a protective circle around her. Doing a modern imitation of the correspondents of the past who refused to photograph FDR in a wheelchair or refused to reveal JFK’s and LBJ’s White House trysts, the press corps swallowed Clinton’s claim that her health was fine.
They did so despite the fact that she has a history of fainting and falling, including in 2009, when she broke her elbow, and in 2012, when she sustained a concussion and maybe worse. That pattern alone should have resulted in skepticism.
Instead, the press corps closed their minds and treated dissenters like pariahs to coerce conformity. NBC News got the full treatment when it dared to break ranks.
Alone among the big networks and major papers, it did a four-paragraph, 91-word story on Clinton’s uncontrolled coughing fit during her Labor Day speech. In a flash, campaign operatives and their media handmaidens declared war on the reporter, Andrew Rafferty, lest others also get the crazy notion that their job is to report facts.
Rafferty was mocked and swamped with insults, including from some MSNBC commentators who turned on their sister network. They were like jackals, tearing away at a colleague’s reputation out of partisan allegiance.
The Washington Post, CNN and others added their voices to the Clinton chorus, demonizing any who mentioned her coughing fits as cranks, nut jobs and conspiracy theorists. No news here, they thundered.
In fact, the deniers were suckers. They were buying into the Clinton scam that the world is out to get her. They are her useful idiots.
Guilty of malpractice, they participated in a shameful episode fueled by the media’s determination to defeat Donald Trump. They don’t love Clinton, but their hate for Trump blinds them to their duty.
Because they believe they should pick the president, they didn’t want to know the extent of Clinton’s health problems, and didn’t want anybody else to know, either.
Then, within four days of the NBC story, Clinton’s doctor checked her because of the persistent cough, and diagnosed her with pneumonia. Again, we know that only because the video forced the campaign’s hand.
Of course, it would be foolish to believe we know the full truth now. Allergies don’t usually cause pneumonia, and pneumonia doesn’t usually cause otherwise-healthy people to collapse on the street. There’s probably much more to the story.
But neither should we be foolish enough to believe The Washington Post, The New York Times and others will report the full story in straightforward fashion. They soon will suffer their own amnesia about how Clinton humiliated them and jump back into the tank for her.
That process already has started, and the protective circle around her will draw closer as the election does. As she goes, they go.
But remember the little video — it is a hinge of hope. It shows the power of simple facts and the value of the democratization of media.
In this case, it lifted the veil of dishonesty and informed the electorate. In doing so, it reminded millions of Americans why they don’t trust the mainstream media any more than they trust the Clintons.
Smart people, deplorables and all.
By Michael Goodwin
It is said that history turns on small hinges, and now maybe the presidential race does, too. For hinges don’t get much smaller than the 20-second video of Hillary Clinton collapsing and being lifted into her security *vehicle.
Without it, Americans would still be clueless about Clinton’s serious health issues. Because of it, she was forced to admit she has pneumonia.
Because they were scooped by the video, an army of journalists is now under pressure to report facts instead of covering them up. Most important, voters got fresh proof that Clinton’s first instinct is to lie, and then lie again.
Those are just some of the immediate aftershocks of that little video. If my hunch is correct, the fallout is just beginning and eventually will result in voters learning the whole truth of Clinton’s condition.
Start with the fact that she *humiliated the so-called best and brightest news organizations. Despite her unshakable reputation for being dishonest and untrustworthy, Clinton nonetheless managed to snooker most mainstream outlets into believing that her coughing fits were just allergies.
Those organizations were so gullible that they created a protective circle around her. Doing a modern imitation of the correspondents of the past who refused to photograph FDR in a wheelchair or refused to reveal JFK’s and LBJ’s White House trysts, the press corps swallowed Clinton’s claim that her health was fine.
They did so despite the fact that she has a history of fainting and falling, including in 2009, when she broke her elbow, and in 2012, when she sustained a concussion and maybe worse. That pattern alone should have resulted in skepticism.
Instead, the press corps closed their minds and treated dissenters like pariahs to coerce conformity. NBC News got the full treatment when it dared to break ranks.
Alone among the big networks and major papers, it did a four-paragraph, 91-word story on Clinton’s uncontrolled coughing fit during her Labor Day speech. In a flash, campaign operatives and their media handmaidens declared war on the reporter, Andrew Rafferty, lest others also get the crazy notion that their job is to report facts.
Rafferty was mocked and swamped with insults, including from some MSNBC commentators who turned on their sister network. They were like jackals, tearing away at a colleague’s reputation out of partisan allegiance.
The Washington Post, CNN and others added their voices to the Clinton chorus, demonizing any who mentioned her coughing fits as cranks, nut jobs and conspiracy theorists. No news here, they thundered.
In fact, the deniers were suckers. They were buying into the Clinton scam that the world is out to get her. They are her useful idiots.
Guilty of malpractice, they participated in a shameful episode fueled by the media’s determination to defeat Donald Trump. They don’t love Clinton, but their hate for Trump blinds them to their duty.
Because they believe they should pick the president, they didn’t want to know the extent of Clinton’s health problems, and didn’t want anybody else to know, either.
Then, within four days of the NBC story, Clinton’s doctor checked her because of the persistent cough, and diagnosed her with pneumonia. Again, we know that only because the video forced the campaign’s hand.
Of course, it would be foolish to believe we know the full truth now. Allergies don’t usually cause pneumonia, and pneumonia doesn’t usually cause otherwise-healthy people to collapse on the street. There’s probably much more to the story.
But neither should we be foolish enough to believe The Washington Post, The New York Times and others will report the full story in straightforward fashion. They soon will suffer their own amnesia about how Clinton humiliated them and jump back into the tank for her.
That process already has started, and the protective circle around her will draw closer as the election does. As she goes, they go.
But remember the little video — it is a hinge of hope. It shows the power of simple facts and the value of the democratization of media.
In this case, it lifted the veil of dishonesty and informed the electorate. In doing so, it reminded millions of Americans why they don’t trust the mainstream media any more than they trust the Clintons.
Smart people, deplorables and all.
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
I'd vote for anyone who can outlaw Filipino and Guam customer service
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
I really wonder if the Hillary people parlay this health stuff into "we need to delay the debates because she hasnt recovered fully"
As in delay them until they dont happen at all.
They know she is going to get absolutely lambasted by Trump even with biased moderators.
As in delay them until they dont happen at all.
They know she is going to get absolutely lambasted by Trump even with biased moderators.
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
False.
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
Two choices that have a legitimate chance, how bout that counselor?
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
Depends on how you define "legitimate."
Probably not going to happen without Johnson being in the debates... but if he gets in there, I firmly believe his poll numbers will rise. There are already a few states where he is right there with Trump and/or Hillary. If he were in the debates and could win a state or two, could throw the whole electoral college off. Then the whole Washington duopoly comes crumbling down.
Of course, it's all dependent on him getting in the debates... which is run by the duopoly.
I wish more people were educated about how rigged this sytem really is. Instead, 9% of the country nominates the two primary candidates, then the other 90% of voters just go along with, following the Pied Piper to their death.
You may vote for the winner. You may vote for the only person with a "legitimate chance" to beat the winner. In the end, you're just as guilty for the shitshow this government and political establishment has become as the politicians are.
- Messages
- 55,054
- Reaction score
- 6,169
Sorry you see it that way Pep
Unfortunately your guy doesn't have a chance, whether he's in the debates or not. And voting for him is voting for Hillary, which is the same thing that happened with Ross Perot in 1992 (and he was more of a legit candidate than Johnson in terms of support)
Like I said, I don't agree with everything Trump is for but I do like a lot of the things he is openly supporting. We need somebody up there who isn't FROM there that will do something different and shake things up. What they are doing now and for the past couple decades aint working, and the corruption and waste are both out of control.
Unfortunately your guy doesn't have a chance, whether he's in the debates or not. And voting for him is voting for Hillary, which is the same thing that happened with Ross Perot in 1992 (and he was more of a legit candidate than Johnson in terms of support)
Like I said, I don't agree with everything Trump is for but I do like a lot of the things he is openly supporting. We need somebody up there who isn't FROM there that will do something different and shake things up. What they are doing now and for the past couple decades aint working, and the corruption and waste are both out of control.