Is Trump Nuts?
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 120217
PAGE 39 of 100
I guess emails that say essentially "I killed a million sand n*ggers, Yeehah!" have some impact overall. Add a little "get the grimy jew bastards" and "everyone has to support the nazis or we kill them" "fuck democracy" "I'm going to steal this election" and "I stole a couple billion dollars from haiti" and yeah, I guess they matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:During the election, the MSM covered about equally the scandals of Trump and Hillary. Once Hillary was officially a nobody, a zero, all the coverage moved to Trump. Hillary gets no airtime, while Trump, being President, gets all of Hillary's, everything he got as a candidate, and what President Obama would have got on typical day with no drama.
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The MSM did the opposite of what you think they did.
Who said I think that? I know what they did, and what they are continuing to do by doubling down on it.
The MSM did the opposite of what they thought they were doing, and are still doing that today.
They better turn up something pretty damning and soon. They're 110% vested in this now, and it's going to destroy them if they find nothing.
That's not good for any of us.
Do you remember Hillary's scandal? Yes, you do. Do you remember Trump's scandals? There were too many. Nothing in particular comes to mind unless you concentrate on one or two and drill into the details.
Hillary had more than one scandal. The MSM did not give equal airtime to the "scandals", especially given the different nature of them.
There was far more time spent on Trump being a pussy grabber than there were on Clinton's borderline treasonous behavior, and the only "coverage" of it was the MSM constantly saying "move along folks... nothing to see here". Hillary got a ton of coverage, no doubt, but almost none of it was negative. They were all besties with Clinton.
If the MSM had been going after her like they are going after Trump now she wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning and likely would have been locked up before the election even took place.
But that is in the past now. You're right. She's a nobody now. Without any major celebrity death or some Waco-style confrontation on our soil the entire MSM seems to spend all it's time now chasing Red shadows.
I wonder where Hillary is hiding out now? They closed down the Clinton Foundation almost immediately after she lost. I take it from her disappearance that she did not pay those angry Middle Eastern warlords back their millions of dollars.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER: They closed down the Clinton Foundation almost immediately after she lost.
You mean this Clinton Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#2015_State_Department
_subpoena ?
Altho it seemz to hav sum contributorz with less than entirely filanthropic motivationz, the State Department investigation never turned up anything worthy uv prosecution. And the Clinton Foundation gets 4 out uv 4 starz from charity watchdogz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:During the election, the MSM covered about equally the scandals of Trump and Hillary. Once Hillary was officially a nobody, a zero, all the coverage moved to Trump. Hillary gets no airtime, while Trump, being President, gets all of Hillary's, everything he got as a candidate, and what President Obama would have got on typical day with no drama.
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The MSM did the opposite of what you think they did.
Who said I think that? I know what they did, and what they are continuing to do by doubling down on it.
The MSM did the opposite of what they thought they were doing, and are still doing that today.
They better turn up something pretty damning and soon. They're 110% vested in this now, and it's going to destroy them if they find nothing.
That's not good for any of us.
Do you remember Hillary's scandal? Yes, you do. Do you remember Trump's scandals? There were too many. Nothing in particular comes to mind unless you concentrate on one or two and drill into the details.
Hillary had more than one scandal. The MSM did not give equal airtime to the "scandals", especially given the different nature of them.
There was far more time spent on Trump being a pussy grabber than there were on Clinton's borderline treasonous behavior, and the only "coverage" of it was the MSM constantly saying "move along folks... nothing to see here". Hillary got a ton of coverage, no doubt, but almost none of it was negative. They were all besties with Clinton.
If the MSM had been going after her like they are going after Trump now she wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning and likely would have been locked up before the election even took place.
But that is in the past now. You're right. She's a nobody now. Without any major celebrity death or some Waco-style confrontation on our soil the entire MSM seems to spend all it's time now chasing Red shadows.
I wonder where Hillary is hiding out now? They closed down the Clinton Foundation almost immediately after she lost. I take it from her disappearance that she did not pay those angry Middle Eastern warlords back their millions of dollars.
Enlighten us as to what they are Jack.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see only two possibilities here.
1) Clintonistas are playing dumb, in which case, why should anyone pay attention to them?
2) Clintonistas really are dumb, in which case, why should anyone pay attention to them?
It's a lose-lose, guys.
And where do we start, skipping her fiasco with getting kicked off the watergate team, do we start with her "little confederacy" and the drug running, killing two teenagers in Arkansas, her preferential treatment of her own company Walmart, contacts to shell companies she set up for Bill, or do we start in DC, with killing Vince Foster (if you're not a moron it's obvious, but if you want to pretend that didn't happen jump right to: and illegally destroying all his files to cover up for white water) how about Whitewater itself? WACO? Attack on the World Trade Center, 1993, Oklahoma City, Rwanda? It's only 1994 guys. She hired Monica Lewisnky because as she told a colleague: it would be embarrassing if Bill was caught "whoring around town" like he did in Arkansas, 100 prostitutes and 36 rape cases. That's unusual for a governor. How about her healthcare fiasco. Her secret healthcare commission was filled with lobbyists instead of lawmakers, and they tried to subvert the vote. And it's still only 1994. This is going to take me all day, so I'm going to let it go, knowing that you all know it gets much much worse as time goes on, even long before it gets to her running chemical weapons to ISIS.
As for why not go after her? The same logic as applies to Robespierre erecting a guillotine in Concorde Square was a bad idea: His own head rolled on it.
Anyone care to continue this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Obama is. Really, I mean it. Pepsi changed their logo in 2008 to make it look more like the Obama symbol, abandoning its Korean flag of half a century.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't watch Fox News. It's fake news just like CNN and MSNBC.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Neither do I, I don't have a TV, but I did notice the hotties.
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
I don't watch Fox News. It's fake news just like CNN and MSNBC.
They're not bad for an MSM news outfit, the anchors are smart, both witty and educated, (and they're all fairly good looking) The narrative is often framed, but the reporting is fairly honest, if you skip the opinion section of their news.
I like, btw, that they do that. Most TV stations mix their opinion so thick into their content that the two become inseparable. Maddow, for instance, could be improved ten fold if she just said "here is objectively what happened, and now here is what I think about it" and also to go the full FOX, prop up some conservative counterpart to Dennis Kucinich (FOX's pet liberal) someone like Ron Paul (he'd really make a good counterpoint, they've worked together on a number of issues, and serious conservatives might call him a RINO, Maddow did try to politically assassinate his son, so maybe not) anyway to come on the Maddow show, and let pet conservative and liberal commentators go at it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To simplify things into their broadest terms, in recent elections the Republican always gets around 60 million votes; the question is whether the Democrat can bring out more voters or not. If they can, as Obama did twice, they win. If they can’t, as Clinton and John Kerry failed to, they lose.
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
The narrative is often framed, but the reporting is fairly honest, if you skip the opinion section of their news.
I like, btw, that they do that. Most TV stations mix their opinion so thick into their content that the two become inseparable. Maddow, for instance, could be improved ten fold if she just said "here is objectively what happened, and now here is what I think about it"
And the Trump campaign itself had an explicit strategy to demoralize Democrats, developed by Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon. As Bloomberg Businessweek reported:
Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. ‘We have three major voter suppression operations under way,’ says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.
How much credit they can take is open to debate, but there’s no doubt that they got the result they were after.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10/why-did-trump-win
-in-part-because-voter-turnout-plunged/?utm_term=.fc53bf7b4907
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second,
The chart is convincing. I doubt Trump is responsible, because democrats don't even listen to moderate democrats, let alone republicans. Look at this forum. If I couldn't influence your vote, I sincerely doubt JSF and Auraptor are going to swing it.
Some democrats of course did vote for Trump. Sig and 1kiki for starters. But that's the only way I think Trump influenced democrat turnout. Largely what you're seeing is anti-Hillary sentiment. And that's because she's an evil hateful person.
I'm coming to think she's an exec in an evil hateful international stealth corporation.
Here's a thought: Why does WaPo post anti-Trump stories? Doesn't this seem like an extreme manipulation? Skipping the detail that Bezos was a republican, there's a much more disturbing angle. If he has trouble with the Trump administration all he has to do is walk next door and knock and say "hey, could you deal Amazon.com a break on this Mexico thing" or whatever. Why does he care what we think?
There's some deep level game going on here, and I suspect everyone is being had.
Edit: A second glance at the chart gives me a second thought, Second:
Those > 60 million votes are only for Obama. Maybe these are not democrats. They could be a probama vote. They're probably independents. They might be black people, or latinos, who are registered independents, who were swept up by the si se puedo hope and change message, and 1/2 of them were disaffected by midterm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME