The trick was to introduce a Republican as a Democrat so Democrats would think it was their idea and it's one of the most successful political scams in American political history. They sacked Trump early in the game and had no plan of voting for him. They have used him as a sack ever since while they pretended to be victims. It's priceless.
Here's one for you, Cadillac Man. (larfs)
We keep hearing people saying Hillary Clinton is Democrat but the only beast more violent than her is the wolverine we just chucked into a chicken coop.
We came, we saw, he died.
The wolverine may be violent but it's not vicious. The viciousness of that statement from Clinton is incomprehensible since she thinks she's so clever in saying it when she strikes the pose of a unisex Roman emperor. She screams, 'I'm all in for vicious psychopathy, Julius, my brother.'
More than likely, the wolverine has the larger brain since it at least has the room for restraint and won't kill something simply for the joy of killing it and rarely has anyone been so proud of inflicting death as was Hillary Clinton in talking of how Qaddafi was assassinated.
Cadillac Man, this goes straight back to flogging Manifest Destiny as the progenitor so there's another bit of this. By what fucking right does she kill anyone as she comes on like she fights for the greater glory of Jesus.
(Ed: she's psychotic!)
Obviously but why would anyone put up with it. They fucking shoot mad dogs, don't they.
The Republican masterstroke in this is genius since they started goose-stepping toward Clinton many months ago and they threw out Trump back then as well. Since then we have seen the most monstrous political machine ever created which has done everything possible to destroy Trump and without any regard to the rule of law if not decency.
Clinton had her accusations toward Trump's Deplorables but she has fought him with her Army of Despicables, none of whom have the faintest idea they're fighting for a Republican due to the efficacy of the original stunt; they have no idea she's a Republican since, apparently, they're all deaf, dumb, and blind kids but they were never any good at playing pinball.
It's unmatched political genius in Republican hermaphroditism.
(Ed: doesn't that mean a creature has all the sexual parts so it has the capability for fucking itself?)
Well, the evidence speaks for itself, doesn't.
Those deaf, dumb, and blind kids should be well-aware since many of them lived much of the history and it's not the Millennials who have bought it. Fortunately at least a few Americans exist who are still possessed of the capability for inductive reasoning.
We warned them, didn't we. We said don't ever play Three Card Monte when you go to New York but you didn't fucking listen, did yewwww. No matter how slick you may think you are as a Midwest tourista, someone playing Three Card Monte on the street can snake you faster than he swindles ice cream from children.
A variation on the same theme of Three Card Monte is gambling you can identify which shell of three has the pea hidden underneath it and, yep, you will lose that one as well.
Die Kaninchen have among us One Who Knows and he's a smart tourista who is generally hip to the street but, yep, they fuckin' snaked him too, didn't they.
Note: yes, they did.
The election is summarizing a little differently from when Jimmy Stewart was "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" since this time Mr Smith went downtown ... and was hung out to dry. Through it all he thought he was a martyr but really was just a stooge. Unbelievable.
Until they die, Republicans will be giving each other high fives and congratulating themselves for pulling it off.
4 comments:
It is an interesting theory, but there are no facts presented to show that Hillary has switched parties and is now a Republican. The Republican Party has splintered into those for Trump and those for all Republicans except Trump. The Democrats have for the most part reluctantly united under Hilliary.
There are similarities in foreign policy amoung the two parties. However, domestic policies are vastly different.
The recent video tape of Donald Trump, where he describes his sexual exploits and aggression, appears to have become a tipping point. Many Repulicans who were softly supporting him are no longer. Assuming, no such deleterious media depicting Hillary surface, she will likely win the presidential race. Then, the daunting task she will face, is uniting the country with a likely Republican Congress and possibly Senate.
The evidence of Republicanism is in action rather than name since an aggressive prosecution of external conflict versus a strong defense is in clear violation of a structural principle of Democrats
It's arguable the sale of military kit to Saudis to bomb Yemen doesn't violate any principle since Democrats want successful business, if only to tax it. The aggressive sale of weapons is an ethical problem rather than one stated overtly in the platform.
It's this single thing which has strongly segregated Dems vs Repubs and the last sixteen years have been met with Republican fervor and with equal cynicism in creating the need for combat and then filling it.
The single-minded determination to whack Assad for no clear reason is evidence of the same thing.
Another aspect of the Democratic platform has been the need for Fed controls to manage various aspects of the system and the absence of anything significant toward the banks is further evidence of the party's abandonment.
These things are egregious departures and are specifically why I charge abandonment of the party.
It seems Oliver Stone is the only one who agrees with me but everybody thinks he's crazy too (larfs).
I agree that the policy changes you outline are significant changes in the stated Democratic platform of the past. They are not crazy and I happen to like and respect Oliver Stone also. However, you both now represent the minority liberal wing of the Democratic Party that desires change. The policies you note are clear violations of structural principle have been supported at least tacitly by both parties since the Bill Clinton administration.
The decisions relating to Libya and Syria, for example, were made under Bush II (Sadam Hussein) and currently the Obama administration (Osama Bin Laden). The banking decisions were also made during each administration since Bill Clinton. In all three cases the presidents were elected for a second term, indicating a general approval by the American people and of their policies at the time.
Hillary is proposing largely to continue the policies of the previous administrations in such matters. Obama currently holds a near 50% approval rating. It appears therefore that the majority of the Democratic Party supports the foreign policy changes that in fact has been the policy for over 25 years.
The decision to align with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party is often because of a multitude of other issues where there is a distinct difference. This is why many members of the Democratic Party that disagree with some policies you mention still support the candidate. While they would like to see a change in foreign policy and banking one of these issues are their primary concern.
For example:
DEMOCRATIC PARTY REPUBLICAN PARTY
PRO CHOICE. PRO LIFE
AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
IMMIGRATION TOLERANT. NON IMMIGRATION TOLERANCE (AS PERTAIN TO SELECT GROUPS)
PRO GUN CONTROL. AGAINST GUN CONTROL
PRO OBAMACARE & SINGLE PAYER REFORM AGAINST OBAMA CARE & SINGLE PAYER REFORM
Therefore, just as Donald Trump is a Republican. So, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. In both cases, there are issues where members of both parties have significant issues with their presidential candidate. Nevertheless, they represent the majority of the current party. The results of the election and the actions of both candidates will influence the future policies of both parties. History shows it always does.
Sorry but majority rules doesn't do it for me on a fundamental change to the platform of the party in turning so incredibly aggressive, regardless of who the progenitors were. Regardless of who was behind Libya, Obama fired the shot. There has been so much blind savagery large-scale death and extreme military expense that this single matter, in my views, outweighs the other by kilotons.
Of the others, most are morality issues which have been badgered about for a zillion years but the single payer reform is goes full state support or I'm not buying it when the privatization of the fundamental service has been a travesty, if only from prescription costs higher than anywhere else.
My patience with morality issues is near zero when they have been argued since the sixties and those matters are so battered and bruised they look like they've been cage fighting all that time. If the death penalty matter includes huge prison reform then that becomes interesting but still greatest good for the greatest number prevails and that goes directly to war with a tie with medicine.
Post a Comment