Giving it to Mrs. Clinton

So, we have our first Republican Congressman saying “I’m voting for Mrs. Clinton.”

Here’s a bit from the link:

“He added: “I think Trump is a national embarrassment. Is he really the guy you want to have the nuclear codes?”

The moderate, upstate New York congressman announced at the end of last year that he would retire at the end of his 2016 term.”  (Z: which makes it easier for him to speak his truth)

I knew there were shenanigans at press conferences, but yesterday morning, I watched some of the Obama/Singapore President’s presser and had to laugh.  The first journalist called on asked about the Khan fiasco and Trump’s reaction to it, and did Obama feel Trump is presidential….you’ve all heard by now how long Obama’s diatribe about how unprepared Trump is, in every way, to hold the office of Commander in Chief.

Of course, Obama also mentioned the Republicans who are standing up for Khan in that debacle, and named them, and so it made Trump look like a crazed lone wolf lunatic. Christie, too, is now attacking Trump on this.

If Trump wants not to get elected, he’s doing the best job I’ve ever seen.  He has a gift.

So, only in the last few days,  Trump told a family to ‘get that baby outta here’ at his latest speech, he’s said what most of America feels is insulting to a Gold Star Family, he’s now saying he’ll lose because the elections are rigged, he blamed the debates on Hillary’s people when it’s not they who schedule the debates,  Sally Bradshaw (a really important political strategist) has left the Republicans “because of Trump” and is announcing her vote for Hillary, he told Howard Stern a while back that “avoiding sexually transmitted diseases in the dating scene was “my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier,” but it’s coming out again now since he received a purple heart from an elderly veteran …I could go on.  And on.  So could you.

But, let’s cheer up, at least Estonia’s president thinks Trump’s saying what people want to  hear.   Maybe that’ll get Trump votes. (sarcasm)

How do you think Trump will do if he actually does a debate?

Mrs. Clinton:  “You shouldn’t have said what you did to the Khan family.”

Mr. Trump:  “Crooked Hillary…you are disgusting!  That’s a baaad family, and you’re just saying this to make me look bad.  I’m rich and people love me, so stop. ”

I hope he’s studying HARD because anybody’d have a lot of catching up to do on every subject a debate might include.  And I hope he’s working on keeping angry and tough but calm and civil.  Think he CAN?

Z

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 2016 race, hillary, Obama, Trump, voting. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Giving it to Mrs. Clinton

  1. Kid says:

    Z, Why aren’t people speaking out? Why does clinton have more than 100 people willing to vote for her? Many of us are speaking out. What use is it?

    I don’t believe every moslem is a terrorist. I’d say about 25% are terrorists and the other 75% are tasked with breeding out the natives of the respective countries they are currently living in.

    More specific to the point of violent moslems – given that the two san bernardino spider brained moslems were known to be “a party girl” and a “nice hard working young man”, someone tell me how I can tell a murderous moslem from one who simply wants to breed out my culture and vote me out of existence.

    But no, I don’t trust a single one of them. Deceit is islam’s first, middle, and last name

  2. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, it’s just realism…I TOTALLY get your points about muslims…but do you really think we can get rid of every one of them and keep future muslims out? They’re even sneaking in as Hispanics with the rest of the illegals coming up from the South….they sneak into the group and pass themselves off as Mexican…it’s AWFUL.

    We may need that bunch of muslims who aren’t terrorists to help keep OUT the scourge..MAYBE?

    Why Clinton has more than 100 people willing to vote for her is an excellent question.

    The better question is: How do you say you’re a Conservative with Cons. values, get ticked off at Trump, and decide to VOTE FOR HILLARY?
    I can’t BELIEVE the number of Congresspeople and other pundits saying they’re Republicans who’re now supporting Hillary!

    WHAT? Where are your VALUES? WHAT are your values? Are they KIDDING? THAT is absolutely stunning to me.
    NOT VOTING for ANYBODY is not good…but I GET that…but to be a Republican senator and now support HILLARY? Don’t they KNOW what she stands for?

    WHAT THE????

  3. Geezer840 says:

    I see two major problems with Trump:
    First, he cannot think and talk at the same time.
    Second, he can’t stop talking.
    Some say that not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. I say when the choice is between two evils pick neither.

  4. ….but do you really think we can get rid of every one of them and keep future Muslims out?

    Though Trump has sort of walked this back, in Trump fashion anyway……barring legal immigration based on what the government thinks their religious faith happens to be is not only un-Constitutional, but idiotic. This is not the policy proposal of a rational person.

    “Good day, Mr. Abdul Hassan is it? Papers please…….hmmm…are you now or have you ever been a Muslim?

    No, you say?…….Welcome to America.”`

  5. Kid says:

    It is absolutely constitutional to weed out potential evil-doers. In fact it is government’s responsibility to do so.

    But your attitude is why the moslems will win. Goodbye American Pie.

  6. Kid says:

    Z, No I don’t expect anything sensible to happen in America anymore. Just like in Europe, random mass murder will become a part of life in America.

  7. My ‘attitude’ holds up in the law of the land. A religious belief, which is something that cannot ever be proven in a court of law, is not now, nor can ever be legal justification for punitive legal action.

    Unless of course you are now an advocate of thought police.

  8. Kid says:

    Has nothing to do with religion. We need to stop importing form the middle east, I don’t care what their religion is. Profiling is a perfectly reasonable strategy for self-protection.

  9. Then you should have no issue with what I wrote. We have every right to screen and deny based on nationality.

  10. Mal says:

    Again, we need to learn from Israel which, unlike us, is surrounded by Muslim countries, yet manages to stop terrorism almost completely. How? THEY PROFILE. Too simple for us, huh?

  11. geeez2014 says:

    So, CI and Kid; the Constitution says we have every right to screen and deny on NATIONALITY but not on RELIGION, is that right?
    I’d like to know more about this and examine the choices, etc.
    (CI, I think of you over there and hope all’s going well…I hope the girls at home are well)

    Mal, seems like we should be able to do that, doesn’t it.

  12. Kid says:

    Z, that’s my understanding. I just lazily used moslem because the majority of people coming here intent on violence are moslem and get their instructions from the koran. If you google “denied immigration visa” there are a number of reasons why a person can be refused immigration.

    Personally, I believe islam should be dis-recognized as a religion in the US but good luck with that.

  13. Mal says:

    Good luck with that, indeed, Kid. It’s been around too long to not be considered a religion, huh? Actually, we should consider it illegal in America because it can and does incite violence & death, both of which would be against our laws. One would think, anyway.

  14. Kid says:

    MAL, not to mention it violates many of our human rights laws. I really think to be a ‘religion’, it must pass a basic test including at least the above.

  15. bocopro says:

    The concept of Islam projects a suspicion and a sadness which reflect the barrenness and futility of its origin. The savage emptiness of its credo, therefore, reflects the desolation of the land in which it emerged like a wild, frightened animal separated from its mother.

    Most belief systems offer a sense of belonging, rituals, sacraments, reward . . . but Islam apparently offers little more than unrealistic apparitional carnal pleasures in an imaginary desert oasis as an enticement to follow a hyped-up myth which must be constantly refreshed by encores of the bloodbath which spread it beyond the otherwise boring, dreary, pointless circumstance of its birth.

    Islam is very different from other mythologies in that it is savagely intolerant of the rest and depends on the slaughter of other humans to deserve the sole sensual-pleasure promise in its otherwise mundane Paradise. It does not train or ordain priests, but instead allows embittered, single-minded, lunatic prophets to persuade ignorant, illiterate, unemployed, and impoverished yokels to trade their souls for a lie promising little more than unlimited sex in an unlikely afterlife, hardly what one would call a cerebral or moral imperative.

    The Qur’an is quite inarguably a ripoff of the Torah, the Talmud, and much of the New Testament. It is a very dangerous, schizophrenic book of rules ginned up by the unimaginative, perhaps psychotic, mind of a neurotic nomad immersed in Neolithic tribal society by simply plagiarizing and distorting Jewish and Christian doctrine and practices.

    Therefore, it adapts readily to the Arab and other impoverished unsophisticated minds of 3rd world nations. It demands total, mindless obedience and survives through its proponents who carefully select excerpts from it which inspire fear rather than friendship, terror rather than tolerance, lust rather than love.

    As long as the Qur’an exists in the world, peace cannot long endure. If it was in fact dictated by a supernatural entity to Muhammad in that cave, then that deity was a bipolar sociopath who went to that cave only on days when he was suffering a nauseating migraine.

    Civilized persons who examine the book and the history of the death cult it directs come easily to the conclusion that in matters of religious belief, all Muslims are barbarians who suffer from various degrees of paranoia, pedagogy, philistinism, and psychosis.

    As a religion it is fraudulent; as a social mechanism it is an abject failure; as a political strategy it is Hitlerian; and as a lifestyle it is depressing. The entire world would be much better off if the cult went the same way as polio or smallpox or diphtheria.

  16. Kid says:

    I view the koran as a blueprint for sadistic conquest put together from other documents at the time by a man or men interested in building an army of completely obedient soldiers to achieve said conquests. What better way to build an army than create a ‘religion’ that serves only its soldiers.

  17. geeez2014 says:

    I was thinking that WE can be KILLED here in America for our religion, but we can’t keep the killing religion OUT because of their religion.
    Ironic, don’t you think? 😦

  18. Kid says:

    Our freedoms will do us in with vermin like this. Our system only works when the majority participates. It seems like too many are not participating and the moslems are definitely participating.

  19. Silverlady says:

    First, for my money Islam is a vicious cult started by a pedophile caravan-raiding bandit. As to a Muzz ever being a true & viable citizen of this country, & accepting our Constitution as the supreme law of the land, impossible. Nothing, absolutely nothing shall be above their Koran. Period! Their system of belief rejects friendship with the GIAOUR, that’s us. And they believe in conversion or death. We have seen their fatal & horrific practices taking place with greater frequency, & not just in the ME. And you cannot name another accepted religion that demands death for an apostate as they do.

  20. Kid says:

    moslems not participating

  21. ….the Constitution says we have every right to screen and deny on NATIONALITY but not on RELIGION, is that right?

    As I see it, yes. Nationality is measurable and thus actionable. Immigrants and especially refugees…from countries that spawn terrorists like rabbits, should be denied entry forthwith and poste haste.

    Religion is immeasurable and unless admitted, inactionable. Not to mention, very likely un-Constitutional…as a basis to selectively deny entry into the U.S.

    And thank you, I’m doing as well as can be expected. Not sure if I miss my princesses more than they miss me, or vice versa. But I could write a book on the inefficacy of the Iraqi politico-military system…and the insanity of our presence here.

  22. Mal says:

    I hadn’t realized our Constitution allows us to deny based on Nationality, C.I. You mean we could actually deny people from a certain country even if they would love to enter and become good, law-abiding citizens? Hmmmm. Doesn’t that sound contradictory to what and who we are?

  23. Mal – There has been, to my knowledge, no suit to repeal the McCarran-Walter Act…nor was there [again, to my knowledge] when used by carter in 1979. It certainly could be used in a fashion contradictory to our ideals as a free Republic…and there should be a vigorous debate about using it to deny entry by nationality. But a denial on the basis of nationality, is at lease feasible and measurable. Wild-ass ranting about denying or deporting ‘Muslims’…is not.

  24. geeez2014 says:

    CI, that’s right; and Trump apparently is now saying ‘denied based on TERRITORY’….while our problems almost 100% are with MUSLIMS, deporting is impossible, BUT I still do believe we can deny for a period of time.. there IS no feasible ‘vetting’ and that’s problematic, to say the least.

  25. Mal says:

    Again, P.C. rears its ugly head, I guess. So sad we can’t see the forest because of the trees.

  26. I’m not sure how that is “political correctness” without setting precedent for endangering your own religious beliefs.

  27. But I would welcome an explanation on how deportation or denial of entry – based on a belief – would actually work.

  28. Kid says:

    CI, I know this is focused on the USA, but did you notice Poland refuses to take in any ‘migrants’ and has depolyed their Army to eject any that are already there. Their decision is based on their observation of the massive rapes and terror events occurring through the EU countries.

    I see this as doing their job to protect their citizens and culture from these savages, and see no reason why the USA could not emplooy the same logic.

  29. John M. Berger says:

    Yeah, Poland gets it, don’t they!

  30. Kid says:

    JMB, One of maybe up to 2 (I think I read about one other country) in the world who get it.

  31. Kid says:

    JMB, Thanks. I thought there was one other sane country on Earth.

  32. I see rhetoric by leaders and pols in Poland and Slovakia, but what has actually been implemented, and what metric are they using? Blanket denial of entry across borders and denial based on national identification [passport] is easy. What is the plan to deny entry to Muslims?

  33. Kid says:

    I don’t have that information.

  34. John M. Berger says:

    “What is the plan to deny entry to Muslims?”
    Ask them! As sovereign nations [they] have every right to control in-migration for the good of their countries.

  35. Nobody is arguing that sovereign nations don’t have the right to control their borders….but if an argument rests on another nation “getting it”, it would lend credence to what “it” is, if it were know if “it” were even an actual process in place, and what metric is being used to implement it.

    Immigration ban based on nationality = easy
    Immigration ban based on race = easy
    Immigration ban based on a belief + how?

  36. Mal says:

    Right, John. They can deny any group like Putin did for Russia. You are welcome to Russia so long as you accept their customs, speak their language, etc. No Muslims, no Mosques, no Sharia Law. If you want those things, go back where you came from. Most countries have that right if they so chose. He got a five minute standing ovation for his short speech.
    I believe the U.S. could do that also, esp. if we declared a war on ISIS. There would be justification similar to what we did at the start of WW ll to Japanese Americans……and they were American citizens, many born and educated here, so banning Muslim migrants would be easy.

  37. John M. Berger says:

    “but if an argument rests on another nation “getting it”, it would lend credence to what “it” is, if it were know if “it””

    First there was no argument and second the above is more Clinton like than Slick Willey could have ever come up with. The Nations, in question, are in close proximity to Germany and available to see the absurdity of allowing these vermin into civilized society. If [you] don’t “get it” that’s your problem and If [you] don’t “get it” sorry I can’t help you any further. You are welcome to the last word(s) as I will not dignify your crap with further response.

  38. You could have merely said that you had no idea how a ban on Muslim immigration would work, instead of doubling down on the Leftist tactic of appeal to emotion.

    It’s also interesting to see public support for the Japanese internment. This is why the most toxic candidate ever nominated by the GOP in my lifetime, will be defeated by the most toxic candidate [and easily beatable] ever nominated by the Democrats in my lifetime.

  39. Mal says:

    C.I. I don’t know whether or not you were around during WW ll but I was and can tell you even though we felt bad placing Americans of Japanese heritage into what were basically concentration camps, we felt safer because we realized their heritage was stronger than most others and we possibly avoided espionage. P.C. didn’t exist then and we did what we felt was best for American and its citizens. In retro-respect, it would probably be considered illegal today, but know what? We did it then and won the war………..with no terrorist activities.

  40. Mal – I was not around during WWII, and while I could understand your point of view, in a historical context, the denial of fundamental civil liberties to American citizens can never be excused, if we wish to call ourselves a Republic. This is not directed at you personally, but I would note that the demographic currently claiming they being disparaged and endangered [the Christian right, generally], is seemingly oblivious to the notion of precedent.

  41. Mal says:

    C.I. I do understand what you are saying, believe me. I was merely pointing out our history on this matter, that’s all. What you describe is an idealistic society, which would be nice, but we must remember during a war all this stuff goes by the wayside in the interest of safety. We are in a war which our “leader” refuses to acknowledge, blaming it all on everything but what it is…………. ……Islamic Terrorists. Truthfully, I preferred it back then when we had leaders that were truly patriotic Americans. I wish all Z’s bloggers could’ve lived those times. They’d have been so proud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s