Skip to main content
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 391544 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #690
She can't handle the pressure I reckon.

And is not even the president yet.

 Putin and his Chinese counterpart must be rolling around laughing.
I spent most of my money on Women and grog.
The rest I just wasted.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #691
Hillary's long history of lying

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/rita-panahi-on-us-presidential-nominee-hillary-clintons-long-history-of-lying/news-story/bcaefc129da722db03f315c2f862573d?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter

Quote
However, the Democratic presidential nominee has a long history of lying, not only when it’s expedient, but also when there is absolutely no reason to lie.

She has made up bizarre fantasies that have been exposed as falsehoods. It’s little wonder many now doubt her claims that she’s fighting fit after vision emerged of her being held up by Secret Service agents, Weekend at Bernie’s style, as her team made a hasty escape from media covering a 9/11 memorial event.  


The most remarkable aspect of Clinton’s persistent deceit is that she’s managed to get away with so much for so long and still remains the hot favourite to become the next leader of the free world.

Her claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary went unchallenged for more than a decade despite the fact Clinton was born in 1947, six years before the New Zealander conquered Everest and became a household name.

Then there was her claim that she dodged bullets during a 1996 visit to Bosnia as first lady that was deemed too dangerous for her husband to attend.

“I remember landing under sniper fire,” she said. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Only problem with that tale was that it was disputed by celebrities in her travelling party as well as by video footage of the arrival ceremony, which showed a smiling Hillary and daughter Chelsea being greeted by officials and an eight-year-old girl reading a poem.

Turns out there was no gunfire, no running to vehicles, no threat to the then first lady whatsoever.

But Clinton’s most shameful lie, and one that makes her a pariah among many military personnel, is the disgraceful duplicity that followed the Benghazi killings on September 11, 2012. Knowing that it was a terror attack by Islamists inspired by 9/11 that could do untold damage to the Obama administration in the lead-up to the November poll, Clinton sought to blame a YouTube video for the uprising.

According to the family members of the slain men, one of whom was brutally tortured on video before being killed, Clinton lied to them about what inspired the killing, even promising to “have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son”.

It would be a delicious irony if the “lie” that undoes Clinton’s presidential hopes is the one that is not really a lie at all.

Despite the myriad conspiracy theories about her health issues it is possible that she is perfectly healthy and that the occasional episodes of ill-health are normal for a 68-year-old woman taking part in a gruelling campaign.

Those outside the mainstream media diagnosing Clinton with everything from Parkinson’s disease to brain cancer suddenly sound less crazy thanks to Clinton’s history of incessant lying. Of course it doesn’t help that the Clinton camp was not forthcoming with her current ailment until its hand was forced by that remarkable footage.

It was all going so well a few weeks ago as Clinton, soaring in the polls, hammed it up with comic Jimmy Kimmel on his talk show, even opening a jar of pickles to show how virile she was.

Hillary is not laughing anymore. The polls have tightened with Trump even leading in some recent polls; pundits argue that any other conventional Republican candidate would be trouncing her.

Clinton’s greatest blunder during the campaign came just before her recent collapse.

Addressing an elite NYC crowd she revealed a tin-ear for public sentiment. “You can put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables’,” she said. “They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

This was precisely the tactic used by the Brexit “Remainers” that failed spectacularly. Labelling hardworking Americans who don’t want to vote for you as racist misogynists is weapons-grade stupidity. Those seeking to characterise scrutiny of Clinton’s health and age as inherently sexist have obviously forgotten the level of focus on the health of John McCain, Bob Dole and Dick Cheney.

Clinton’s “victimhood” tactic may play to Left-leaning members of the media but an increasingly cynical electorate is not interested in such self-serving nonsense.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #692
Given that Trump lies far worse than she does, so what?  This is a 2 horse race and George "I can not tell a lie" Washington isn't in it.  for every alleged lie from Clinton, there are many from Trump.  He never apologises or withdraws when he's caught out lying.  Many examples can be given but the most obvious is the birther campaign where he disputed that Obama was born in the US and claimed he had hired a PI who had found evidence to the contrary.  And don't tell me he should be judged differently as he was a businessman and not a politician.  He's been harbouring a desire to run for the presidency for a long time.  And there's no reason a dodgy businessman shouldn't be called to account in a presidential campaign anyway. 

Panahi showed her colours when she brought up Benghazi.  What a crock that was. 

Obama is campaigning for Clinton while she's laid up.  He's a much better campaigner than either Clinton or Trump.  His approval rating is up to 58% and he's a powerful orator.  Turn out is a vital issue for Clinton and he can energise voters, particularly black and minority voters.  Apparently, he is likely to campaign heavily for her in October.  There's little doubt he will do so passionately.  His legacy depends to a large degree on a Clinton victory and he wouldn't be human if he didn't hold a very large grudge against Trump after the birther outrage which was a thinly-veiled racist attack.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #693
Obama is campaigning for Clinton while she's laid up.  He's a much better campaigner than either Clinton or Trump.  His approval rating is up to 58% and he's a powerful orator.  Turn out is a vital issue for Clinton and he can energise voters, particularly black and minority voters.  Apparently, he is likely to campaign heavily for her in October.  There's little doubt he will do so passionately.  His legacy depends to a large degree on a Clinton victory and he wouldn't be human if he didn't hold a very large grudge against Trump after the birther outrage which was a thinly-veiled racist attack.

It' s hard to imagine why this Clinton/Trump campaign isn't bad enough for the US to change the rules to let Obama run again. He doesn't even have to mount his own argument for the case!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #694
Given that Trump lies far worse than she does, so what? 

Wow very defensive about crooked Hillary, I posted an article about Trump being a liar already.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #695
The whole US election is proof that money corrupts.

They are in a race to the bottom, in the old days it was called anarchy!

The US public won't be too happy if Trump gets in, if they protest he is likely to turn the National Guard on his own people.

Hilary will be too busy feathering her own nest to care!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #696
Why are you taking it personally?  I was responding to Panahi rather than you.  By pasting her article, you were inviting comment on it. 

I knew you'd posted about Trump and I therefore didn't regard you as a Trump booster.  In my mind's eye, I see you in the "disruptor" category, those dissatisfied with the present political system.  That's not a criticism, at least in my mind.  The bulk of Sanders supporters are too. 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #697
Why are you taking it personally?  I was responding to Panahi rather than you.  By pasting her article, you were inviting comment on it. 

I knew you'd posted about Trump and I therefore didn't regard you as a Trump booster.  In my mind's eye, I see you in the "disruptor" category, those dissatisfied with the present political system.  That's not a criticism, at least in my mind. The bulk of Sanders supporters are too.

Hell it proves he has brains.

For me, I would state the only way the American people can win on this choice is if they don't vote.

It would send a clear message to the government surrounding lifting their standards, and I was borderline thinking that this might be the way forward in Australia too.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #698
In my mind's eye, I see you in the "disruptor" category, those dissatisfied with the present political system.

Would you seriously label someone like MBB as a disruptor, a person who obviously thinks the US system stinks and quite possibly with good reason?

It could easily be argued that it is Trump and Clinton doing the disrupting, they appear to have hijacked the US political system for their own means and ends.
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #699
Why are you taking it personally?  I was responding to Panahi rather than you.  By pasting her article, you were inviting comment on it. 

I knew you'd posted about Trump and I therefore didn't regard you as a Trump booster.  In my mind's eye, I see you in the "disruptor" category, those dissatisfied with the present political system.  That's not a criticism, at least in my mind.  The bulk of Sanders supporters are too.

Fair enough, I thought "so what?" was directed at me.

2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #700
Thry, if it were Clinton v Romney, I'd have no problem with that.  But Trump is a disaster waiting to happen and we can't insulate ourselves from a Trump Presidency.  Trump would be ecstatic if voters see a false equivalency between Clinton and him, throw their hands up in the air out of frustration and refuse to vote.

What the Yanks need to do is conduct root and branch reform of campaign financing and lobbying.  That's currently impossible.  The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people too and they have a constitutionally protected right to free speech and that entends to the right to use money to influence political decisions - see the Citizens United case.  Chief Justice Roberts said he sees no evil in politicians supporting the interests of corporate interests in return for campaign financing.  In his view, that is democracy at work.  Until the Supreme Court reverses that position, there's no hope of changing the system.  It's much more likely that Clinton will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will reverse Citizens United than Trump.  There is a current vacancy to fill and maybe a couple of others in the next 4 years.  That may allow that ruling to be reversed or at least wound back.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #701
LP, I don't see the term 'disruptor' as perjorative.  AFAIK, it has entered the lexicon after the success of Uber in breaking into an old system and shaking it up.  It's now used in a positive sense when talking about people who seek to reinvent various industries.  I'd imagine that change-seekers would wear it as a badge of honour.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #702
Obama is campaigning for Clinton while she's laid up.  He's a much better campaigner than either Clinton or Trump.  His approval rating is up to 58% and he's a powerful orator. 

"Don't it always seem to go,That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone"....Joni Mitchell :(

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #703
Heard something interesting on the radio the other day...

Apparently the polls are showing a third person (can't remember his name) is sitting @~9%.

If Clinton or Trump don't get a majority, which may happen with the above getting a significant number of votes, the House of Reps gets to vote on who becomes President.  House of Reps are also up for election, but if it remained status quo, there is a significant Republic majority.  However, with some internal dissatisfaction with Trump, it is not necessarily so that he would be a shoe in.

I would also be interested who would be favoured if there is a very low voter turn out.

 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #704
The House only elects the President if no candidate wins 270 electoral college votes. That simply can't happen unless someone other than Clinton or Trump wins 1 or more electoral college votes. To win votes, a 3rd party candidate would have to receive more votes than both Clinton or Trump in a State (or in the case of a couple of states which split up their votes into districts, by winning g such a district). Getting 9% of the vote won't do that.

What a 3rd party candidate might do is take enough votes from either Trump or Clinton to swing a state one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's most likely that they'll syphon off votes from Clinton. Disaffected Sanders voters might go Green or Libertarian. Never Trump Republicans might prefer to vote for the Libertarians or for the Never Trump candidate. If it were only a 2 horse race, many would opt for Clinton.