Posted on 10/20/2016 7:22:50 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
That’s a wrap, folks. Thanks for coming. You’ve been a terrific audience.
For 16 months, Donald Trump’s accidental campaign was the hottest thing on TV. Even Trump seemed surprised when his little side project, sandwiched between seasons of “The Apprentice” and premised on giving away a bunch of hats, blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
How could he have known it would be that easy to take over an entire party? I sure didn’t. Turns out the Republican Party was like “Wheel of Fortune”; people followed out of habit, but they were sick to death of the reruns.
But as Trump scowled and scoffed his way through one final debate, it was clear that his egomaniacal show had finally played itself out. After weeks of ugly disclosures and cratering polls, all that remained for Trump was to figure out some way to end the series without having to admit it was canceled.
So after railing all week against a “rigged” election, Trump pointedly refused – twice – to say he would accept the result as legitimate. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” he said instead. I guess every dying show needs its cliffhanger finale.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Lex Luthor’s taint.
Trump is going to win in a landslide and the Liberals know it. They are shaking in their boots.
Is he dating Lindsey Graham or Shep Smith?
Definitely would look better in a Gestapo uniform.
True that
Matt can suck it, frankly.
He looks like he’d smoke a pole.
There’s definitely signs of panic.
Poor, sad little butt-hurt bee-yotch will probably commit suicide when Trump wins with over 65% of the vote. At least then he'll be at peace... not to mention, he'll finally be a good fag.
At a Celebrity Roast of "The Donald" some years ago, Trump told this joke:
"What's the difference between a wet raccoon and Donald Trump?
A wet raccoon doesn't have seven-billion f***ing bucks in the bank!"
My God, how I love this man.
There will be heads exploding. Can’t wait.
The tally:
Trump ~ 69%
Clinton ~ 19%
I mention this because for some months now I have been predicting a 65-27 Trump landslide.
I may have been a bit conservative...
It seems all the “news” these days is Marxist propaganda delivered by homosexuals. Instead of “Mainstream Media,” or even “Lamestream Media,” it should be:
“Queerstream Media.”
The guy thinks along the lines of, "if only Progressives could help the Democratic Party establish clearly defined goals, they might have a better chance of a winning strategy, that every office holder could embrace, they would always win elections!"
Yahoo is in the tank for Clinton. Their “news” on the home page couldn’t be more slanted.
Yeah! Right! Well According to WAPO He won it hands down!
Their nightmare is only beginning.
A poor man’s Moby.
Yahoo is the largest online news web site in the world, and the most liberal. The Millenials eat it up.
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.]
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.