Courage, overconfidence. It can be hard to tell the difference.
She probably just figured that, like most Hollywood types, heâd take it easy on her and do his best to make her look good. Iâd say the credit goes to Zach for being an equal-opportunity skewerer.
Temperament, temperamentâŚ
[quote]The riskiest situation for the world is when our adversaries canât predict our response. That encourages them to be adventurous. With a
President Trump, foreign leaders will know that every action creates an equal and measured reaction. Every time, and right away. Thatâs his unbroken pattern.
With a President Clinton, foreign leaders wonât always know what they will get. For one thing, they wonât know where her allegiances are. Is she serving the people, the Democratic Party, or lobbyists? Will she react with equal force or try to be diplomatic?
Uncertainty is risky. Clinton offers more uncertainty. She is complicated. Trump is simple.[/quote]
If heâs predictable, he can be manipulated. But at least heâs on our side.
Sheâs the worst of both worlds. A glitch-ridden automaton.
Better living through chemistry?
[quote]You donât recover from pneumonia in 90 minutes, but thatâs more than enough time for most medications to take effect. Was Hillary given some drug or drugs after her collapse, and did she take the same medications before the debate?
Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that in August 2011, an aide sent Cheryl Mills an article on âdecision fatigue.â âWow, this is spooky [sic] descriptive,â Hillary wrote back.
Two months later, Clinton asked foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan to look into the stimulant Provigil (modafinil). She was told it was used to treat excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy, work-shift sleep disorder, Parkinsonâs, Alzheimerâs, and MS, enjoyed a following among students and truckers,
and was being tested by the military of several countries.[/quote]
For any given dangerous street drug X, there was a time in history when it was viewed as a good thing. A century ago sheâd be chugging original recipe Coca-Cola.
This is what Republicans are reduced to.
As opposed to what? Manipulating the IRS to target their opponents?
Shutting down free speech on universities.
Attacking your political opponents violently.
Using the DOJ to meet up with husbands of accused days before their testimony.
Knocking out political opponents because you have control of the DNC to hell with what people want.
You guys are one step away of having all control taken away, you aint going to have the power to decide anything agian soon.
Emails, Clinton Foundation, the steady drip of revelationsâŚ
Itâs only an October surprise if youâre surprised.
It gets better:
Outing the corruptocrats.
So she has a human side after all:
The first one actually shows a hint of patriotism/jingoism. But my personal favorite is the last:
âCome on Bill, put your dick up! You canât fuck her here!!â
Prezzzzzzented without comment:
[quote]In Native American culture, every animal is believed to have a totem. So, when an animal (or insect, in this case) appears at a time or in a place that it normally wouldnât, that means itâs delivering a unique message to the person whose path it crossed.
According to starstuffs.com, âThe lesson of fly is in the value of carrying your emotions, thoughts and feelings in order to act quickly in sometimes unfavorable or uncomfortable conditions.â[/quote]
Solid endorsement here from another publication that normally doesnât make them.
Foreign Policy magazine? You mean the one whose CEO and Editor worked in the Clinton administration and has been a strong Obama supporter? Hmm, yeah. Thatâs a real head-scratcher. FP is a mouthpiece for the neoliberal/neocon elite, so of course it hates Trump.
The one that has never endorsed a candidate in its history, that one. If you want to narrow things down to publications that donât hate Trump, youâre going to be left with an increasingly small pool. But letâs look at publications that would normally endorse Republicans like clockwork. Where are they going?
No surprise to those who understand whatâs going on. But it will probably cancel out:
https://twitter.com/trumpocrats
Pity those who canât grasp when the rules are changing. Theyâll never win the new game.
No surprise that the lying and dying media are shilling for the globalist elite warmongers. They know where the trough is and where their snouts belong. That the neocons jumped ship tells you everything you need to know.
What I find more ironic is the shilling for the globalist elite warmongers by people here.
Yeah it doesnât matter, no one reads newspapers or cares about their endorsements. You can easily win a presidential election by offending 70% of everyone and not having anyone back you up except your own die-hards. Itâs a good thing we have a guy as smart as Trump to take on the âglobalist elite warmongersâ, everything is sorted now.
Youâre being sarcastic, but thatâs pretty much what is happening these days. A lot of people used to see the âpapers of recordâ like the NYT and WaPo as being fair and impartial, but this election cycle especially is making them wake up to the fact that theyâre just as biased as any other rag out there.
Politicians have been railing at the lefty rags forever, nothing new there. The point is itâs not only themâas far as I know not one publication, even the ones most supporting Trump have endorsed him, and many have specifically un-endorsed him.
Even Jill Stein presidential candidate for the green party acknowledges Hillary Clintons policies are far more hawkish, dangerous and likely to lead to war, perhaps even nuclear than anything Trump has proposed.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4624521/jill-stein-donald-trump-better-russia
The far left has always thought kowtowing to Russia was safer and preferable, would avoid war, and nuclear war, etc. It wasnât a good idea then and it still isnât. When you are dealing with an aggressive adversary not bending to their will is always more dangerous and harder, but that doesnât necessarily make caving in advisable.
The US caused this mess by pushing for regime change and arming the rebels, not only did they fail they gave the world ISIS.
What right does Hillary Clinton have to declare a no fly zone over Syria? At least the Russians are there at the request of the president of Syria. How will she enforce a no fly zone? Her generals have told her enforcing a no fly zone means a war against Syria and Russia. Do you really think a war with Russia is a good idea? Why would anyone think this was a good idea? Where in this very foolish policy of hers can you see any positive outcome?