Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump beat Clinton first and foremost because the White House changes party almost always after a two-term incumbent.
Clinton was massively handicapped by years of smear campaigns and a White House and FBI that was so sure that she would win that they wouldn't sound the alarm on election meddling.
Click to expand...


That, and a large dose of misogyny.
 
smartcooky said:
Yeah, that is pretty much the kind of reply I expected to get from sycophantic Trump supporting white supremacist.

You have to be Blind Freddie to not see the damage Your Hero has done to your country - the racial division he has stirred up, the homophobia he has encouraged, the religious distrust he has engendered, and the use of parents love for their children as a weapon against them by separating them and confining the children in cages, sometimes thousands of miles away. There are almost 500 children still separated from their parents by Your Hero's minions. The parents have no idea where their children have been taken, and the state has lost them - they don't know where they are either.

Your Hero has called Nazis and white supremacists "good people". He mocked a war hero, and then mocked his grieving daughter. Your Hero is a despicable piece of excrement. Your Hero is totally uncaring for his country, his people or those around him. He has no conscience, no intestinal fortitude and entirely lacks anything resembling a moral compass.
Click to expand...

You might simply add that Trump is a traitor, as defined by law. Done! In support of good contemporary Republican/Calvinist ideals, maximum penalty, and for God's sake, no mercy!! Should a white man be given less than a black man, after all? That would denote wussy cowardice. No, sirree. Treason, in this case -- and as stated, out of profound respect for staunch conservative values -- should be punishable by death. Or as a GOP belieber might exclaim, for any other cause and in any other court room, "fry the bastard."

As I am against the death penalty, I merely wish Trump many, many years behind bars, kneeling and servicing others. Over and over, and over again, until his knee callouses and canker sores are "yuuge." No parole.
 
LSSBB said:
Then mention the underlying factors as driving the events, not the statistics.
Click to expand...

There was a deviation in the statistical trend from 1933-1953 in the FDR-Truman years. Eisenhower was technically a R, but the Democrats wanted him to run on their ticket, too, so you can almost say it was 1933-1961 where the "welfare state capitalism" "ticket" was a winner.

ETA:
This is relevant to what I'm talking about. Philip Bobbitt (google him) refers to that time period as when the US was a nation state, which we no longer strictly are:

https://www.strategy-business.com/article/04109?gko=ccb14
Whereas the nation-state saw its role as increasing the material wealth of the nation’s people and was charged with making sure it was fairly distributed, the market-state seeks to increase the aggregate wealth of its citizenry — through deregulation, growing public–private partnerships, and what Professor Bobbitt calls “the devolution of the welfare state.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
statistical patterns reveal the presence of underlying factors.
Click to expand...
For what sample size? Can you show your hypothesis goes back a century? Can you rule out other variables like the FL butterfly ballot confusion and the SCOTUS denying a recount?

I think you are jumping to an illusion conclusion.
 
LSSBB said:
Then mention the underlying factors as driving the events, not the statistics.
Click to expand...

Unfair! Sometimes, we can see patterns only through the statistics, without a clear sign of the underlying factors or causes. In those cases, statistics are useful, but of course should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Mojo said:
That, and a large dose of misogyny.
Click to expand...

The only people expressing misogyny were those who would have never voted for H. Clinton regardless of her gender or who she was running against. As someone who voted mostly for Republicans in the '60s, '70s and '80s, and mostly for Democrats in the '90s, '00s, and '10s, Hillary's primary problems in 2016 revolved around her personal political history, her name, and the (D) after that name, in roughly that order.
 
Trump Tweets

"According to the Failing New York Times, the FBI started a major effort to flip Putin loyalists in 2014-2016. “It wasn’t about Trump, he wasn’t even close to a candidate yet.” Rigged Witch Hunt!"
 
Trakar said:
Hillary's primary problems in 2016 revolved around her personal political history, her name, and the (D) after that name, in roughly that order.
Click to expand...


Her name?

Agreed. 'Crooked Hillary' is just flat-out a terrible name for any profession, especially a politician.
 
Trakar said:
The only people expressing misogyny were those who would have never voted for H. Clinton regardless of her gender or who she was running against. As someone who voted mostly for Republicans in the '60s, '70s and '80s, and mostly for Democrats in the '90s, '00s, and '10s, Hillary's primary problems in 2016 revolved around her personal political history, her name, and the (D) after that name, in roughly that order.
Click to expand...

There is a deep strain of misogyny that runs through this country. I don't know how you can dismiss that as a factor when the race was as close as it was.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Her name?

Agreed. 'Crooked Hillary' is just flat-out a terrible name for any profession, especially a politician.
Click to expand...

Ah ha ha! Oh, mercy, that's a fine one. You must be proud by adopting your fine candidate's epithet in this way, because it really is mighty clever. I mean, of course, somewhat less clever than when he chose it. And, honestly, not quite so clever then. But still, to pretend it is her name! Oh, mercy me. Quite a good attempt at humor.

Still better luck next time, you know.
 
Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

This is his own AG, who he nominated and can fire at anytime. How any of you still support this man-child is a complete mystery to me. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Obama had bashed his AG for investigations into crooked Democratic Congressmen?
 
Fudbucker said:
Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

This is his own AG, who he nominated and can fire at anytime. How any of you still support this man-child is a complete mystery to me. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Obama had bashed his AG for investigations into crooked Democratic Congressmen?
Click to expand...

That was different. Democrats are bad. Republicans aren't. They benefit folk and get caught on little piddly **** like buying vacations using their God-given campaign funds.

Nah, **** this sarcasm. His comments are really ridiculous. He's really pushing that easy election candidates shouldn't be charged before the election, if they're on your side. It's kinda hard to parody such a ridiculous position.
 
phiwum said:
That was different. Democrats are bad. Republicans aren't. They benefit folk and get caught on little piddly **** like buying vacations using their God-given campaign funds.

Nah, **** this sarcasm. His comments are really ridiculous. He's really pushing that easy election candidates shouldn't be charged before the election, if they're on your side. It's kinda hard to parody such a ridiculous position.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out who this pronoun refers to: the head of the executive branch of government.

Unreal. The Republicans who stood silently by while this has gone on are going to rue the day.
 
That sexism was a factor in the 2016 campaign is undeniable. I remember seeing
"man/woman-on-the-street" interviews where both men and women said they wouldn't vote for HRC because she was a woman. I even heard one person claim she would be unreliable during certain "times of the month" due to hormones. This moron couldn't figure out that even IF that were a valid argument (it's not), HRC was well past menopause. The use of the "b" word and other sexist language and images used on pro-Trump pins and t-shirts is evidence of that. for examples see:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/opinions/hillary-clinton-interview-sexism-robbins/index.html

To understand how sexism played a role in the 2016 campaign, one needs look no further than Trump himself and his disgusting misogynistic utterings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom