Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

basilio · 2 August 2016

Actually I do understand Wayne. The scales have fallen from my eyes after I saw the latest Trumpesque news.

Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

Republican nominee makes claims on campaign trail while ignoring controversy over his remarks about a Muslim soldier’s parents

Donald Trump has claimed that there is a possibility of the US presidential election being “rigged” as he tried to divert attention away from a disastrous week for his campaign by also labelling his rival Hillary Clinton as “the devil” and praising the primary opponent of Republican speaker Paul Ryan.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...he-devil-and-suggests-election-will-be-rigged

It's just so obvious isn't it.

Hilary is El Diabolo, The Anti Christ, The She Devil

And she will use her devilish powers to rig this election if the rightful winner, El Godo Trumpo, doesn't snare the right number of votes.

So of course with that astounding piece of knowledge we all have to get out our torches and pitchforks, fire up the barbie and rid the world of this haggard devil.

Do you hear me Wayne? Are we all clear ? El Godo has spoken. His message to all the faithful deluded is a clarion call.

Are you all off yet ? I expect to see the heaving masses of righteous, wall eyed, madness on the streets in a matter of days.

Knobby22 · 2 August 2016

wayneL said:
New?

Point taken.

Knobby22 · 2 August 2016

basilio said:
Actually I do understand Wayne. The scales have fallen from my eyes after I saw the latest Trumpesque news.

i wouldn't worry too much Bas.
Trump is in trouble now. I don't think he is going to make it. One faux pas too many and this one betrayed his selfish nature a bit too obviously.

luutzu · 3 August 2016

Knobby22 said:
i wouldn't worry too much Bas.
Trump is in trouble now. I don't think he is going to make it. One faux pas too many and this one betrayed his selfish nature a bit too obviously.

Things look pretty bad when it's still a toss up between Clinton or Trump.

I mean Trump is a loud mouthed, psychotic lying, racist, self-promoting, misogynist idiot with people within the RNC not liking him, with billionaire donors favouring Clinton.... and with all the advantages about first women, experience, apparently saner and less psychotic... Clinton is only a few points ahead.

What a disaster.

Maybe people are starting to wonder how busy and on the job could a Secretary of State be if she has the time to write/read 30,000 personal emails - I can't imagine those emails were from Bill to pick up milk and egg on the way home.

But it's still early days and WikiLeak said they got more coming.

Knobby22 · 3 August 2016

Yes, Luutza.
When you put it that way it is pretty bad.
I think the people want change and Clinton is not seen as providing it. The hate created against her over many years of commentry is also a factor.

In the end though, Trump will surely lose. The man is just terrible.

wayneL · 3 August 2016

basilio said:
Actually I do understand Wayne. The scales have fallen from my eyes after I saw the latest Trumpesque news.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...he-devil-and-suggests-election-will-be-rigged

It's just so obvious isn't it.
Hilary is El Diabolo, The Anti Christ, The She Devil

And she will use her devilish powers to rig this election if the rightful winner, El Godo Trumpo, doesn't snare the right number of votes.

So of course with that astounding piece of knowledge we all have to get out our torches and pitchforks, fire up the barbie and rid the world of this haggard devil.

Do you hear me Wayne? Are we all clear ? El Godo has spoken. His message to all the faithful deluded is a clarion call.

Are you all off yet ? I expect to see the heaving masses of righteous, wall eyed, madness on the streets in a matter of days.

Getting a tad emotional there, Dear.

But yes there is an obstacle in the way of the Democrat's(sic) ultimate ideology, The Second Amendment.

But seriously, there are parallels between your puerile rant here and your Apocalypse fantasy in the other thread. I see a pattern that probably requires the professional services of a competent psychiatrist.

luutzu · 3 August 2016

Knobby22 said:
Yes, Luutza.
When you put it that way it is pretty bad.
I think the people want change and Clinton is not seen as providing it. The hate created against her over many years of commentry is also a factor.

In the end though, Trump will surely lose. The man is just terrible.

Unless there's some hard-to-dance-around evidence of Clinton's corruption, looks like she's going to win because people in general do not like foul-mouthed and truly terrible people like Trump. They can put up with somewhat terrible people who know how speak in liberal and pc speaks.

If judged by the standard of normal human practise and morality, Clinton is quite terrible. But judged by the psychotic norms elite politicians and Masters of Man, Ruler of the World kind of standard - she's quite typical.

Knobby22 · 5 August 2016

They have rolled out Clint Eastwood to try to help Trump and though he is a dyed in the wool Republican and won't vote for Clinton he still stopped short of endorsing Trump.

It's amazing really. One of the most unpopular candidates of all time, Clinton, may have the biggest win ever.

And the completely biased FOX news are having trouble lying (they would say spinning) with a straight face. Showing their own poll that states Trump is down 10 points they say he is leading. (well, they meant the economic argument).
Read and weep/ laugh cynically.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/with-clinton-destroying-trump-in-polls-fox-finds-a-silver-lining/

Smurf1976 · 5 August 2016

luutzu said:
Unless there's some hard-to-dance-around evidence of Clinton's corruption, looks like she's going to win because people in general do not like foul-mouthed and truly terrible people like Trump.

A possibly corrupt(?) Democrat versus a Republican who wants to start dropping nukes.

If I were in the US and voting in their election then I'd take a chance on Clinton any day over Trump, no question there. However bad Clinton might be, Trump's starting to look a whole lot worse.

luutzu · 5 August 2016

Smurf1976 said:
A possibly corrupt(?) Democrat versus a Republican who wants to start dropping nukes.

If I were in the US and voting in their election then I'd take a chance on Clinton any day over Trump, no question there. However bad Clinton might be, Trump's starting to look a whole lot worse.

I wouldn't vote for either. If that mean Trump win, then let that dice roll.

I wouldnt put it pass Trump to be asking why he/they couldn't use nuke, but it's from Joe Scarborough and fro WikiLeak we know how the DNC was sick of him dissing Clinton too much so they call Joe's boss and the dude was forced to to a 180. Maybe this is their way of keeping his job and DNC's advertising dollars.

Trump is a nasty human being, for sure. He said a lot of untrue and unpleasant stuff. But would he be any worst than Clinton... I don't think he would be. And that's a really sad statement on the current state of politics.

Any nasty stuff Trump have said, I could name the same nasty stuff Clinton has done or will also do.

So take this Trump wanting to nuke the ME. The Obama administration has signed a 10year, $1 Trillion budget to develop the next generation of nuclear weapons.

The existing nukes are too big, destroy too big of a place. So they're looking into unleashing atomic weapons on a smaller scale - maybe takes out a quarter of a city instead of an entire city.

US Generals are said to be seriously worry about this as it mean a higher chance of nuke being use: You have it, you spent $1T on it, let's try it out on live theatre.

That and Clinton talks about wiping Iran off the map... so you know. Who in their right mind talk about nuke or wiping some 80 million people off the map man.

basilio · 7 August 2016

That and Clinton talks about wiping Iran off the map... so you know. Who in their right mind talk about nuke or wiping some 80 million people off the map man

For real ? Where has Hilary Clinton talked about wiping Iran off the map ? Was there a context ie a serious attack on Israel ?

Like to see the reference for a claim like that.

Also I can't see a fair parallel between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. I don't have a big torch for Hilary but in no current universe would I think Donald Trump was somehow an acceptable alternative as Prez.

Knobby22 · 7 August 2016

You are confused luutza.
The dems did.the peace deal with Iran and are dropping sanctions. They are allies with the US against Isis. The Republicans tried to block it and want to end it. Better check your info.

luutzu · 8 August 2016

basilio said:
For real ? Where has Hilary Clinton talked about wiping Iran off the map ? Was there a context ie a serious attack on Israel ?

Like to see the reference for a claim like that.

Also I can't see a fair parallel between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. I don't have a big torch for Hilary but in no current universe would I think Donald Trump was somehow an acceptable alternative as Prez.

Some context and the Iranian response.

As president, if Iran nuke Israel, she will "completely obliterate" Iran.

A different video of an extended clip show her saying how terrible it is to say that, but sure, she'll obliterate Iran.

So she would hate to do it, but she's do it because?... because she love Israel that much?

How is that different from Trump allegedly asking why he can't nuke places and people? I'm sure Trump also hate to have to drone terrorists and their families too, just you know... he love freedom too much to not to.

We can get into why Iran would want a nuke - what with being in a tough neighbourhood, being labelled a part of the Axis of evil; having two neighbours being invaded and that same invader had invade before, are constantly talking of bombing your country, and you're on its hit list. Who wouldn't want a nuke in that situation?

Or we can get into the fact that Iran and the entire ME wanted the ME to be nuclear free zone... two countries didn't want it, rejects that UN proposal.

Or Clinton's other classics: We came, we saw, he died... ha ha... he and hundreds of thousands of other people too.

Or Bringing them to heel.
Superpredators, gangs like the mob... to introduce the three strike rules, imprisons some 2 million Black and Latinos... all around the same time her husband got donation from private prison operator and he privatise them further.

So yea, I don't like Trump... but is Clinton really any better?

luutzu · 8 August 2016

Knobby22 said:
You are confused luutza.
The dems did.the peace deal with Iran and are dropping sanctions. They are allies with the US against Isis. The Republicans tried to block it and want to end it. Better check your info.

Any president, Republican or Democratic, would have to deal with Iran and lift those sanctions. Well, true, maybe the Republicans wouldn't lift the sanctions... but they'll have to find other ways to deal with Iran.

Not because they like peace with Iran, but because if the US don't, Russia and China will do deals and pipe them Iranian oil and gas to China.

Russia would work with Iran and get the supply down so the prices would go up... The US opening up and lifting sanction would let them in and have access and dealings. It's not for any noble peace stuff.

basilio · 8 August 2016

Ok I can see the context of Hilary Clinton threatening to obliterate Iran. A attack on Israel and USA retaliation.

Don't like it and certainly she was/is more of a hawk than President Obama (or perhaps he is more circumspect about his killings ?)

Hilary was Secretary of State for 4 years in the first Obama administration. In my view on balance she did a very good job. I would hope she is not as aggressive now as she appeared then.

But in the end IMO it doesn't matter in the context of this election. Donald Trump is just so dangerous and unstable he can't be allowed to be President.

If you want to see a more extreme but nonetheless relevant comparison consider what is happening in the Philippines with President Duterte.

Rodrigo Duterte: 'I don't care about human rights'
President publicly accuses Filipino government officials including judges and members of Congress of having drug links.

About 800 people have been killed since Duterte won in May, according to reports [EPA]About 800 people have been killed since Duterte won in May, according to reports [EPA]
Fast Facts

At least 800 people with suspected drug links killed since Duterte won in May
158 government officials including members of Congress accused of drug links
Catholic church leader condemns human rights abuses
Police says 500,000 people have surrendered since anti-drug campaign started

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has named several government officials, including judges, members of Congress and military officers accused of having links to the illegal drug trade, just hours after vowing to maintain his "shoot-to-kill" order against drug dealers.

.....The president said he was also offering soldiers and police his "official and personal guarantee" of immunity from prosecution for killings undertaken in the performance of their duties.
Death toll rises as Philippines intensifies war on drugs

In a homily delivered later on Sunday, Catholic leader Archbishop Socrates Villegas condemned the latest killings, saying, "I am in utter disbelief. If this is just a nightmare, wake me up and assure me it is not true. This is too much to swallow.

"From a generation of drug addicts, shall we become a generation of street murderers?" Villegas, president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said in a statement posted on his website.

The UN anti-drugs office on Wednesday joined international rights organisations in condemning the rash of killings.

"The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime remains greatly concerned by the reports of extrajudicial killing of suspected drug dealers and users in the Philippines," its executive director Yury Fedotov said in a statement.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/rodrigo-duterte-human-rights-160806211448623.html
But Duterte said he is waging a war, and is "now invoking the articles of war".

luutzu · 8 August 2016

basilio said:
Ok I can see the context of Hilary Clinton threatening to obliterate Iran. A attack on Israel and USA retaliation.

Don't like it and certainly she was/is more of a hawk than President Obama (or perhaps he is more circumspect about his killings ?)

Hilary was Secretary of State for 4 years in the first Obama administration. In my view on balance she did a very good job. I would hope she is not as aggressive now as she appeared then.

But in the end IMO it doesn't matter in the context of this election. Donald Trump is just so dangerous and unstable he can't be allowed to be President.

If you want to see a more extreme but nonetheless relevant comparison consider what is happening in the Philippines with President Duterte.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/rodrigo-duterte-human-rights-160806211448623.html
But Duterte said he is waging a war, and is "now invoking the articles of war".

That crazy Filipino president, oh man. Yea, maybe you're right that Trump would be more dangerous.

But my (misplaced?) optimism for American democracy tells me that a Trump presidency is so nakedly awful it wake the heck out of the American public to demand serious changes to the way things are, pronto.

With Clinton, because she is so clever at hiding behind liberal talks... the inequality and corruption that's going on will just keep going, until the anger erupts. That'd be worst I reckon.

----

Haven't followed Clinton's years as SOS... but the headlines don't suggest too much to be proud of.

There's the Libyan liberation she championed... now with three main factions claiming to be its new legitimate gov't. Then there's ISIS and other warlords. Gadhafi's weapon stash were looted and spreads all over North Africa. That can't be good.

She also proposed No Fly zones over Syria... bringing NATO and the US into conflict with Russia.

She also has a very heavy hand in Honduras too. There was a coup and the usual refugee crisis there that we haven't heard much about.

But yea, maybe any SOS in her position would do the same. It's not like she call all the shots.

Though I think her decades in and around power showed there's no use to be "idealistic" and either serve the real power that be, or pack up and go home. I mean, Obama was too new to the establishment and may have a few shock and awe, a few tear and hesitations in "the need" to do all that he did and didn't do.

Clinton would just shrugged off those doubts in a blink and do it. And that's no good.

There has always been money in politics. The term "Lobbyist" was given to those who waits in the hotel lobby for US president U.S. Grant. There's been money Teddy Roosevelt took to get elected... but some leader managed to take the money and tell the donors to go screw themselves. Clinton, with her family $2billion Foundation, doesn't appear the type to say no to corrupt supporters.

qldfrog · 8 August 2016

basilio said:
Ok I can see the context of Hilary Clinton threatening to obliterate Iran. A attack on Israel and USA retaliation.

Don't like it and certainly she was/is more of a hawk than President Obama (or perhaps he is more circumspect about his killings ?)

Hilary was Secretary of State for 4 years in the first Obama administration. In my view on balance she did a very good job. I would hope she is not as aggressive now as she appeared then.

But in the end IMO it doesn't matter in the context of this election. Donald Trump is just so dangerous and unstable he can't be allowed to be President.

If you want to see a more extreme but nonetheless relevant comparison consider what is happening in the Philippines with President Duterte.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/rodrigo-duterte-human-rights-160806211448623.html
But Duterte said he is waging a war, and is "now invoking the articles of war".

how many people have NOT been murdered raped have their lives destroyed as a result of this war?
Stupid but i believe relevant question.
Funny how real democracy can be so annoying, be it when it elect islamists or right wing parties, or even Pauline here

basilio · 8 August 2016

Anyone interested in learning from history ?

Came across this comparison between Donald Trump and young Athenian statesman named Alcibiades. Talk about history repeating itself. Just fascinating...

The one Trump comparison you haven’t heard yet
May 3, 2016 11.01am AEST
Author

Robert Garland

Roy D. and Margaret B. Wooster Professor of the Classics, Colgate University

The race for the Republican presidential nomination has provided pundits with ample opportunity to claim that we have reached an all-time low in terms of fractiousness, divisiveness and vulgarity.

Not so. A quick look to the Classical world lays to rest such a naive assumption.

Politics under any system of government is always a dirty business. But the Athenian political system is tied particularly closely to our own because it was – I’m tempted to say first and foremost – a spectator sport. Much of the time, meetings of the Athenian Assembly resembled an explosive televised debate, as politicians vied with each other in what was often the equivalent of a popularity contest.

We’re lucky to know so much about the workings of Athenian democracy in large part due to the writings of Athenian historian Thucydides. In the course of narrating the history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides incorporated many pairs of speeches arguing opposing points of view that reveal how politicians sought to put down, outmaneuver and even humiliate their rivals.

Any student of Greek history, like me, cannot but admire the historian’s unparalleled understanding of the invisible web that every ambitious, skillful and ruthless politician must weave around his audience. Since there was no party system and no elected politicians either, every day in Athens was like being on the campaign trail. As a result, Athens provides a striking parallel to this year’s seemingly endless presidential primary season.

Just as the campaign trail ideally suits Trump, it was a world ideally suited to a young statesman named Alcibiades. Alcibiades was an Athenian billionaire with a larger-than-life personality to go with it. One of his biographers wrote:

Such was his charisma that even those who feared him or were jealous of him fell victim to his charms.

Click to expand...

Like Trump, Alcibiades knew that the more he courted controversy, the more he would grab the limelight – and the more people would listen to him when he spoke up in the Athenian Assembly, where the important issues of the day were decided by majority vote.

https://theconversation.com/the-one-trump-comparison-you-havent-heard-yet-58571

wayneL · 8 August 2016

basilio said:
... he can't be allowed to be President.
.

Interesting....

Democracy! So long as basilio of the Apocalypse agrees.

Pfffft tosser.

luutzu · 8 August 2016

wayneL said:
Interesting....

Democracy! So long as basilio of the Apocalypse agrees.

Pfffft tosser.

That's way out of context there Sifu.

Oh yea, after a week of insulting the parents of a dead American soldier and shooing a baby out, Trump still managed to narrow Clinton's lead to only 3 percent (Reuters/Ipsos poll).

Man, people really don't like Clinton.

Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

basilio

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

luutzu

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

luutzu

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Smurf1976

luutzu

basilio

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

luutzu

luutzu

basilio

luutzu

qldfrog

basilio

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

luutzu

Similar threads

Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency