Jump to content

"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"

Mitch Cronin

By Mitch Cronin
in Airline Aviation Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 447
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

Some degree of civil unrest is virtually certain now I think. The people are becoming informed, at least half of them anyway, and no one should be surprised if & when they stand up against the tyranny of the Establishment should Crooked Hilary win.

But in the more likely scenario, Team Trump will be grabbing a tiger by the tail when they move to vaccinate the people against the infectious disease that has stolen the peoples democracy away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydee

Jaydee

Posted
Posted

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions -- a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mitch Cronin

Mitch Cronin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Gullible: 

gul·li·ble
ˈɡələb(ə)l/
adjective
 
  1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
    "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
    synonyms: credulous, naive, overtrusting, overtrustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable, dupable, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, ingenuous, innocent, inexperienced, unworldly, green;

Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence. Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

I just watched a news clip of Hilary's arrival in Vegas. There she was with those very special blue sunglasses again. What kind of Pied Piper quality does this woman have that allows her to so easily fool & keep her followers in lock-step? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

Deicer

 

To date all the violence we've seen has emanated from the Clinton camp; note the pile of proof Jaydee has posted above regarding the Clinton Gang's ongoing activities in this respect.

I would expect more of the same from the Democratic trouble makers following Trump's victory.

Democrats have a long standing tradition of employing violence to make a point; do you recall the time Democrat turned on Democrat over several days of violent clashes that took place at the site of the Democratic National Convention over the false-flag war their leader had initiated?

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydee

Jaydee

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mitch Cronin said:

Gullible: 

gul·li·ble
ˈɡələb(ə)l/
adjective
 
  1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
    "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
    synonyms: credulous, naive, overtrusting, overtrustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable, dupable, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, ingenuous, innocent, inexperienced, unworldly, green;

Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence. Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled.

 

IMG_2414.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

One thing is for certain.  The "American Way" is outdated and stuck in the past.  If it is in fact so easy to rig an election then the process needs to change problem is that change has to be done by the people that just benefited from that system.

The USA is a country in decline, people say it is Great or Make it great again but that will be a long row to hoe and before that happens I would expect to see civil unrest to outright violence and revolution.  I firmly believe the pressure cooker is about to blow.  While we will feel some of the effect I am glad my seats are behind the wall (so to speak)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

Crying Wolf, then Confronting Donald Trump

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/campaign-stops/crying-wolf-then-confronting-trump.html

Conservative commentators and die-hard Republicans often brush off denunciations of Donald Trump as an unprincipled hatemonger by saying: Yeah, yeah, that’s what Democrats wail about every Republican they’re trying to take down. Sing me a song I haven’t heard so many times before.

Howard Wolfson would be outraged by that response if he didn’t recognize its aptness.

“There’s enough truth to it to compel some self-reflection,” Wolfson, who was the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2008, told me this week.

In fact, he finds himself thinking about it a whole lot: how extreme the put-downs of political adversaries have become; how automatically combatants adopt postures of unalloyed outrage; what this means when they come upon a crossroads — and a candidate — of much greater, graver danger.

“I worked on the presidential campaign in 2004,” he said, referring to John Kerry’s contest against George W. Bush. He added that he was also “active in discussing” John McCain when he ran for the presidency in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

“And I’m quite confident I employed language that, in retrospect, was hyperbolic and inaccurate, language that cheapened my ability — our ability — to talk about this moment with accuracy and credibility.”

Did Democrats cry wolf so many times before Trump that no one hears or heeds them now?

That’s a question being asked with increasing frequency, though mostly in conservative circles and publications. An essay by Jonah Goldberg in National Review in late July had this headline: “How the Media’s History of Smearing Republicans Now Helps Trump.”

In Commentary, Noah Rothman has repeatedly examined this subject. He wrote back in March that when “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst.”

“Today,” he added, “they point and shout ‘racist’ into the void, but Democrats only have themselves to blame for the fact that so many on the right are no longer listening.”

I think he’s being more than a bit disingenuous about the potential receptiveness of the right — or the left — to anything that the other side says in this polarized, partisan age. There hasn’t been all that much listening for some time.

Also, the Democratic condemnations of McCain and Romney weren’t as widespread and operatic as the ones of Trump.

And this is a two-way street. Republicans paint a broad spectrum of Democrats as socialist kooks, and Obama has been as strong a magnet for hyperbole as any politician in my lifetime. Let us not forget Dinesh D’Souza’s 2010 book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” or Newt Gingrich’s assertion that “only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior” can you grasp Obama’s method of governing, or Trump’s insistence that Obama produce his American birth certificate.

The sad truth is that we conduct the bulk of our political debate in a key of near-hysteria. And this renders complaints of discrepant urgency, about politicians of different recklessness, into one big, ignorable mush of partisan rancor.

What stands out in this presidential campaign aren’t the alarms that Democrats are sounding about the Republican nominee but the ones that an unusual number of Republican defectors are. That’s what’s unfamiliar. And that’s what’s wounding Trump.

Democrats were indeed dire about Romney, even though many of them, including President Obama, now speak of him fondly, as a Republican whose prescriptions might be flawed but whose heart is true.

Four years ago, he was a bloodsucking capitalist vampire whose indictment of Obamacare was ipso facto proof of his racism. In The Daily Beast, he was called a “race-mongering pyromaniac.” On MSNBC, he was accused, by a black commentator, of the “niggerization” of Obama into “the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Romney was supposedly out of touch with reality — never mind that he had governed a blue state, Massachusetts, without cataclysmic incident — just as McCain was described, in some quarters, as a combustible hothead who couldn’t be allowed anywhere near the nuclear codes. He was Trump before Trump, which makes Trump less Trump.

And those are just the presidential candidates. Plenty of other Republicans have confronted charges of florid racism and incipient fascism that apply to some of them infinitely better than to others. Gradations disappear. Distinctions vanish.

Important words are hollowed out, so that they lose their precision and their sting, and exist mainly to perpetuate a paralyzing climate of reciprocal hatred between political parties.

After Clinton’s 2008 campaign, Wolfson went on to work for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat who became a Republican and then an independent. He’s still in the former mayor’s employ, as a senior adviser.

That’s the vantage point from which he has watched Trump’s ascent, and from which he’s making some crucial observations.

“It’s only when you find yourself describing someone who really is the definition of an extremist — who really is, essentially, in my opinion, a fascist — that you recognize that the language that you’ve used in the past to describe other people was hyperbolic and inappropriate and cheap,” Wolfson said.

“It doesn’t mean that you somehow retrospectively agree with their positions on issues,” he added. “But when the system confronts an actual, honest-to-God menace, it should compel some rethinking on our part about how we describe people who are far short of that.”

“We should take stock of this moment,” he said, “and recognize that our language really needs to be more accountable and more appropriate to the circumstances.” I hope we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydee

Jaydee

Posted
Posted

The hole the FBI is ignoring just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

"We have here a clear pattern of corruption that makes Watergate look like child's play. Hillary's aide, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary's false claim that she didn't send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. "

 

http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moon The Loon

Moon The Loon

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Where is the FBI?  Other than in Clintons back pocket.

Now a proven fact. All the violence at Trumps speeches were paid for by Hillary Clinton. They have the cheques.

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/18/newt-gingrich-undercover-video-where-fbi-hillary-clinton-wikileaks-donald-trump

Fox News - as large an oxymoron that exists   <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deicer

deicer

Posted
Posted

Trump was actually doing well for the first half of the debate, then Trump became Trump. 

I just wish he would put fact and figures to what he is saying.  If he says that it is rigged, then show the who, where, why, when and how.  Otherwise the old adage of 'when you point a finger, three point back at you' comes into play.

To me, he only played to the gun owners and the rich last night, the rest he threw under the bus.

And as for respecting the electoral process, by stating that he would let the people know later, where did he think he was?  Back on Celebrity Apprentice and he was going to announce it after the commercial break?

– Socrates

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

It's not that viewership numbers speak to intellect, but the simple fact the vast majority of tv news watchers prefer FOX to any similar service is telling. That a large number of people, predominately Democrats, preferred to receive their daily dose of the news through Jon Stewart's Daily Show, says something too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...