Posted on 10/20/2016 7:37:32 AM PDT by mandaladon
BS. Trump demolished Hillary Rotten Clinton in the second debate.That’s why his poll numbers are rising.
The realization of a Trump Presidency is apparent to even the propagandist presstitutes now, it’s either the cyanide flavored kool-aid or get real time...
They also suspect a lot of Trumpatriots to para bellum...
Fight, fight hard, then fight harder...we’re nearly there...never give up, keep the faith, go Trump!..
She said “no more naps” yet she has virtually nothing scheduled between now and Halloween.
Meanwhile Trump is out there making speeches three times a day. She can’t keep up.
Nor can Bill be her surrogate without a bunch of protesters in “Clinton Rape” and “Danny Williams: Where’s My Daddy?” t-shirts showing up.
Difficult to hear when going about with fingers in the ears going la la la la
“Harry Truman once said that you could not get rich in politics unless you were a crook. The Clintons have amassed over $250 million during their years in politics, and want even more. Corrupt Hillary is a lying sick old crook, who accepts bribes and betrays our country. Everything she says and does, or causes to be said or done, must be viewed with the utmost suspicion. Her promises are worthless, unless they enrich her in some way. Her husband is a rapist and a pedophile whom she has actively enabled”.
Best post of the day!
In the Presidential Debate, last night (the 19th of October), Mrs. Clinton explained her approach to job creation. The recital sounded rehearsed & sloganized; but it demonstrated something very differfent than what she obviously intended. It would be far better described as a path to economic stagnation, than a path to economic progress! A GREAT POST BY FREEPER Ohioan
A Very Confused Candidate
That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
“Rogers has personally lobbied this year for Southern Company, one of the largest electric utility companies in the U.S. — and one of the biggest opponents of the most significant U.S. policy to combat climate change.”
Ironically, Southern Co. is trying to complete two nuclear power plants, despite continuing roadblocks put up by the Department of Energy, which would put out far less CO2 than the typical coal-fired or even natural-gas-fired power plant.
Question: Has the WaPo paid ANY attention to anything Trump has said for the past year??
***
Sarcastic question gets serious answer:
Of course not. Listening to facts might get them to actually consider the fact that they might be wrong.
And that’s thoughtcrime.
I suffered through the entire 90 minutes and this was my feeling also. No matter what she was asked... Clinton would look at her notes or whatever it was she had with her talking points on them and immediately go into one of her canned routines. Wallace would then let her prattle on for an annoyingly long period of time, to his credit on a couple of occasions he mentioned that she did not answer the question, in response she would just go into a different prepared routine that had nothing to do with the question.
It made it difficult for me to judge how this would be viewed by the people who do not know much about what has been going on. Have any of the major networks covered the wikileaks disclosures or the Project Veritas videos? Just barely if at all... they have spent all their air time bashing Trump for his Billy Bush comments and the stream of women that the Clinton Campaign has trotted out.
My feeling was that Trump was much easier to listen to and I wanted to hear what he had to say. I have never seen another Republican in front of at least 100 million Americans say what he did last night about the horrors of late term abortion and I was very proud that he had the guts to do it. Hillary annoyed the hell out of me every time she opened her lying over rehearsed mouth. But I wondered how the debate was playing with the “undecided” and the easily manipulated. We will find out and I am glad there will be three more weeks of Trump working his butt off and Hillary probably hiding out half the time.
Someone else said this so this isn’t my original thought, but maybe it was for the best that she was allowed to ramble on. We’ve heard so little from her during this election cycle. She’s been sequestered, for whatever reasons — because she’s ill, because she’s boring, because they think that in letting Trump talk he’ll be hoisted on his own petard. I don’t know. However, it’s a good thing that Americans had the opportunity to see and hear how she operates.
“Nor can Bill be her surrogate”
Was Bill at the debate?
She wasn’t over-prepared and over-rehearsed - she was reading from a hidden screen, or being fed her responses.
What I couldn’t believe is that Wallace asked the question again of Trump about the sex allegations. If it didn’t matter that both JFK and Bill Clinton were sexual predators, why does it matter for Trump?
The same thought occurred to me. I find her more grating than Obama at this point. Every other word coming out of either of their mouths is part of a shameless lie. But both of them seem to do better when they are out of the news cycle. So maybe, just maybe her rhetoric doesn't play as well with the average public school and Mainstream Media indoctrinated fool as the Democrats think that it does.
I saw that too and a couple times Trump went after Wallace, which I thought was great. Hillary of course just lies, like when she said she supports the second amendment. Or the ludicrous attempt to connect the Trump campaign to Russia’s hacks.
Agreed. Wallace sucked less than Anderson Cooper. That's about as generous as I can be.
CNN looks like they are starting to bail, too. Maybe the press payoff was only good through the last debate and the campaign figured Clinton would carry it from there to the election. Regardless, they better start playing nice with Trump now if they just want to survive.
“Wallace would allow Clinton to ramble on and on and on. Whenever Trump started giving responses that were a little too hot or discomforting, Wallace would interrupt him — usually after the first or second sentence of Trump’s responses.”
_____________________________________________
I noticed that too. So incredibly irritating. Actually, infuriating.
“Agreed. Wallace sucked less than Anderson Cooper. That’s about as generous as I can be. “
___________________
LOL! Very true. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.