Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It's a compelling metaphor, but I feel like if you're waiting until three and a half years into his presidency to make your move, you're probably doing it wrong. This should probably have been one of those "let's destroy this Death Star before it's completed" kind of scenario. Where was she in 2016? The sad truth is that no matter how much psychology Mary Trump's book contains, Hillary Clinton will still never be president.
[HILITE said:Craig4[/HILITE];13157333]She mentions that early on. She thought he was too stupid to win more or less. It makes more sense to wait until the next election to do the most damage. She should have spoken out earlier but she's not the only one who didn't think 80,000 morons would betray their country and put that thing in the White House.
[HILITE said:Stacyh[/HILITE]s;13157564]No one thought Trump was going to win in 2016...not even Trump. Why on earth should Mary Trump have come forward then? Speaking up after his election but long before the Nov. 2020 election would also have been a waste of time because people have very short memories. MT's book has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton being/not being president and why you would even suggest it does is more a comment on your thinking than Mary Trump's.
[HILITE said:llwyd[/HILITE];13157591]Yeah, I like the timing. In 2016 no-one really believed it was possible, I remember thinking that what the hell is wrong with the people for him getting maybe even as much as 45% of the vote... Anway, this is the time for it to do maximum damage. Maybe it won't amount to much in the end but every little helps![]()
[HILITE said:theprestige[/HILITE];13157827]Enh. It's kind of a cometary orbit, for me. Spends most of its time out of sight and out of mind, but occasionally swings into view for a moment.
Anyway, Mary is saying that she's here with her book to stop Trump from destroying the country. Leaving aside the fact that nobody who matters to that goal is actually going to read the thing, don't you think the time for her to stop Trump would have been about four years ago?
And don't you think it's weird that you're calling out references to Hillary Clinton, in the context of the 2016 US presidential elections? I'm not saying you have to think about her defeat by Donald Trump *all* the time. But shouldn't it at least cross your mind when it's the actual thing being talked about?
I was literally talking about the 2016 elections. The elections she could have influenced, had she published earlier. The elections Hillary lost. Thus the reference to Hillary losing them. If that reference feels like a jab... Perhaps it's better not to personalize this too much.
Both you and Craig4 gave the same answer while I was asleep. From my perspective, both answers came in simultaneously. You find it suspicious that I conceded the point in response to your post instead of Craig's?
The truth is, I read both posts in rapid succession. Craig's post was still percolating when your post reinforced the argument. After giving it a little more thought, I decided the right thing to do was concede the point and let you know. Now I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered.
No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
Nope. Three of us gave the same explanation and you still asked "don't you think the time for her to stop Trump would have been about four years ago?"
Like I said, it made sense the first time...and the second time...and the third time... and you still asked the same question so don't give me this cock and bull story about sleeping and percolating.