Hillary Sucks.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Morrison
    replied
    Originally posted by estoguy
    Morrison, you make me laugh. We already have the hissy fit from the Democrats/left wingers. The meetings for the EC had barely started on Monday and I found at least a dozen articles (again) calling for changing the EC. Funny, there was barely any hissy fits when W. won, and Obama, twice.
    I would certainly dissuade the celebrities who emulated Ted Cruz, by urging electors to "vote their conscience" and rein themselves in with how fervently they dissent to the incoming 45th President. If they're not careful, they might accidentally become the 46th President.

    But seriously, to act like everyone was peaceful and supportive after each of Barrack's elections - or at anytime during his administration is a farce.

    After the 2008 elections we had this: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27738018/n.../#.WFraMpgzXbg

    And later in 2009 in Chicago: https://youtu.be/68zIx9D3igc

    Then shortly after on 9/12/2009 in D.C.: https://youtu.be/_fJFvlbijbs and https://youtu.be/EDm9j2s39ww Note, not a "small" crowd by any means.

    By late 2010, the tea party candidates had dominated the mid term elections and Mitch McConnell proclaimed, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” John Boehner seconded that by saying, “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

    Then of course, Obama was re-elected in 2012 and the righty tighties really lost their heads. Conservatives in 30 states filed online petitions in support of seceding from the union. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...fter-election/
    Last edited by Morrison; 12-21-2016, 01:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • estoguy
    replied
    Morrison, you make me laugh. We already have the hissy fit from the Democrats/left wingers. The meetings for the EC had barely started on Monday and I found at least a dozen articles (again) calling for changing the EC. Funny, there was barely any hissy fits when W. won, and Obama, twice.

    The hard truth that needs to be swallowed (although that may hard for HRC, because I think her NOT swallowing led to Bill's shenanigans with Monica, but I digress) by the Democrats, namely the DNC executive and HRC's entire campaign team, is that they rigged the nomination process to push HRC out there. She is one of the most disingenuous politicians out there. You can't expect people from the other side of the political fence to vote for you when you actively disparage them (Basket of Deploreables, etc). Numerous polls pointed to the fact that people DO NOT trust her. And her lying and flip flopping over all manner of things during the campaign evidenced this.

    They did not follow the grassroots that wanted Bernie, NOT her. He likely could have beaten Trump, but the political elites wanted HRC. You reap what you sow. She lost a 15 point lead two weeks ahead of the election - the fault is hers. They gave up the battleground states because they couldn't (or wouldn't) believe that they were going to lose. I know it's satire, but check out the Jonathan Pie rant video released just after the election... he nails the whole thing, especially how the left will not actively debate - they'd rather shut down dissent and put those down who disagree with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeMachinE30
    replied
    Originally posted by BraveUlysses
    you're measuring "not being prosecuted" in pages of posts on r3vlimited?
    You're right.. there are thousands of pages detailing her need to be prosecuted:

    WikiLeaks.

    The unsealing of the first Weiner warrant adds only more.

    Leave a comment:


  • BraveUlysses
    replied
    Originally posted by M-technik-3
    No we have 48 pages of her not being prosecuted for offenses. And then to hear Obama say the news was too tough on HRC was more than enough. Really too tough they came out and said how many thousands of times that HRC had it in the bag no mater how you ran the numbers.

    She in my opinion should not even been a candidate until the email thing had been resolved.
    you're measuring "not being prosecuted" in pages of posts on r3vlimited?

    Leave a comment:


  • 2761377
    replied
    Originally posted by Morrison
    If Hillary had won, Ted Nugent would be booking a hunting trip to Washington, D.C. And the Trumpies would be throwing the biggest hissy fit you've ever seen. Don't believe me? Really. This thread itself has 48 pages of griping about Hillary and she didn't even win.
    well they wouldn't have the full throated support of the Fourth Estate. nor Hollywood.

    so basically toothless.

    whereas we have just witnessed a grotesque display of entitlement by intolerant group-thinkers.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Morrison, lulz.

    Leave a comment:


  • M-technik-3
    replied
    No we have 48 pages of her not being prosecuted for offenses. And then to hear Obama say the news was too tough on HRC was more than enough. Really too tough they came out and said how many thousands of times that HRC had it in the bag no mater how you ran the numbers.

    She in my opinion should not even been a candidate until the email thing had been resolved.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeMachinE30
    replied
    No, it is folks exposing her filth to the ignorant. With her past, forty eight pages is only warming up. Stay tuned.

    And you speak from historical perspective or based on the left's projection of their own faults, that you claim Ted Nugent would book a hunting trip to DC? What does one hunt here?

    Leave a comment:


  • Morrison
    replied
    If Hillary had won, Ted Nugent would be booking a hunting trip to Washington, D.C. And the Trumpies would be throwing the biggest hissy fit you've ever seen. Don't believe me? Really. This thread itself has 48 pages of griping about Hillary and she didn't even win.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeMachinE30
    replied
    Taxes and heroin. Wow.

    Well, HRC definitely loss (actually lost more the EC) but as we have all witnessed by the rampant raging of the left... they will hopscotch from one gripe to another to do anything they can except support America.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morrison
    replied
    Originally posted by gwb72tii
    pls tell me what is crazy about trump's tax plans o learned one

    or

    do you mean reducing corporate tax rates?

    lower personal tax rates with limited deductions?

    let me 'splain
    i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me. results in the real world should drive policy. it's the reason i'm not a fan of our fed reserve. no data to back up their policies, in fact the exact opposite.
    prolly before your time, but go back through history and see what happens when tax rates are reduced. economic expansion, job creation, increased tax revenues to the fed government. ala JFK and Reagan
    corporate tax rates in the USA are noncompetitive with the rest of the world (too high) and one reason why businesses merge with foreign competitors and then relocate corporate offices outside the US. .
    Nobody can argue with the short term benefits of a tax break. Most people who start using heroin report feeling pretty awesome, at first. But if you check back a year later, their life is in the gutter and if their lucky they end up on an episode of intervention. Tax breaks were not sustainable under Reagan and they weren't proven sustainable under GWB. It's nothing more than a parlor trick.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeMachinE30
    replied
    Saw an HTC supporter, male, wearing a shirt that said a her job should be in the white house. I was expecting the back to read making a sam'wich. Not sure if dude read the shirt the way I did bit was unique in that it seemed if the other side made a shirt like that, it would be everything'ist ... racist, sexist, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by dishwab
    What does it mean? I don't understand the metaphor, unless the point is just that Hilary is a piece of shit - which doesn't really make sense given the context...

    The way the "joke" is written implies that one might eat shit because it has similar characteristics to chocolate.

    Doesn't it follow, then, that one might vote for Hilary because she has similar characteristics to... a woman?

    I get that it's disparaging toward her generally but beyond that...
    It means that she doesn't represent a typical American woman. In the same way a turd resembles a Snickers bar.

    Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • dishwab
    replied
    What does it mean? I don't understand the metaphor, unless the point is just that Hilary is a piece of shit - which doesn't really make sense given the context...

    The way the "joke" is written implies that one might eat shit because it has similar characteristics to chocolate.

    Doesn't it follow, then, that one might vote for Hilary because she has similar characteristics to... a woman?

    I get that it's disparaging toward her generally but beyond that...

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by dishwab
    I don't think I get the joke...
    How can you not get it?

    Best commentary I heard from the debate was that Hillary's response to the email scandal was this: blaming Russia for stealing emails is like a husband getting caught cheating by the neighbor peering over the fence and he says the fence isn't tall enough.

    Leave a comment:

Working...