Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

[hanelyp]

Hillary is as corrupt as they come, openly contemptuous of the Constitution, Law, and the American people. The bald faced LIE she told after Benghazi should be enough to disqualify her from any office of trust. Her handling of sensitive State Department documents merits prison time.

Bernie is the village idiot, too foolish to understand that so much of what he promises requires a vast scale of theft to provide. And while apparently honest himself is surrounded by people of poor character, and more people as foolish as himself.

Trump is a bull in a china shop. But unlike any democrat the major media would at least attempt to do their job if he crossed the line. For all his flaws, the dirty tricks threatened against him at the convention would be suicidal.

The only candidate still running that I'd vote for is Cruz. I also like Walker and Carson, but they've dropped out.

As for the First Amendment, it was never intended as the license for lawlessness so many want to make it into. It protects speech from censorship based on the message. It does not, as written, protect you if your chosen medium is criminal. If your rally becomes a riot, disrupts traffic, occupies space you may not legally be present, etc. the police can and should respond accordingly.

[ScottL]

I

would never vote for Trump. As far as I'm concerned he is a man without moral or civil aptitude. Once again, my opinion and I recognize it.

My current order of choice would be: Sanders, Clinton\Kasich\Bush (interchangeable in my opinion and I'm originally from Ohio), Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Carson.

You care so much about Trump's "without moral or civil aptitude"; and yet Hillary Clinton is your no. 2 after Sanders who obviously won't get the Democratic nomination; furthermore Bush is out of race, and Kasich barely still in; so basically Hillary is your no. one choice. In what way would you say that Hillary (or Bill for that matter) Clinton have superior moral aptitude over Donald Trump?

To be fair she's tied at my #2. While I agree she's a terrible choice, I don't see anyone on the Republican side being any less corrupt or capable.

[ScottL]

As for the First Amendment, it was never intended as the license for lawlessness so many want to make it into. It protects speech from censorship based on the message. It does not, as written, protect you if your chosen medium is criminal. If your rally becomes a riot, disrupts traffic, occupies space you may not legally be present, etc. the police can and should respond accordingly.

Sometimes society doesn't listen until you get into it's face. This has been evidenced by a chunk of the 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr.'s street marches were blocking roads and impeding traffic, but him and his followers did it to get a stronger voice when they weren't being heard. This style of protesting has been used on both sides of the aisle (Tea Party was notorious for it as well). I'm not sure how else you get your voice heard when it is being ignored.

[paperburn1]

http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clintons- ... d-exposed/


Hillary’s plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win.

It was a perfectly executed heist. Here’s how she did it:


As reported by The Arizona Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl, Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than the 200 available for the 2012 presidential election to…60.

Sixty? Are you kidding me.

The fact that a voter could go to any polling place didn’t matter much when the lines were so long that many people were forced to abandon the line.

I’ve heard from a number of those who stood outside and waited, and waited, and waited.

One of them, Todd Johnson wrote in part, “I was in one of those long lines — from 4 p.m. to just about 6:40. As we stood, the line just got longer…I saw motivated voters, some with children, trying to fulfill their civic duties. The poll workers were exhausted. The line had been there since 5 in the a.m. and the line only grew in length. My estimate is that if someone were to join before the 7 p.m. cutoff they were looking at a four-hour wait. Call these county officials out!”

Officials apparently believed that so many of us utilize the mail-in early-voting ballots that there is less demand for in-person voting locations.
Wrong.
Yeah, why would at least 30% of eligible voters feel the need to vote? What is this, some sort of “democracy”?
polling
So far, so good
2. Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted
This is cute:
Yes, the media called the election for Clinton with less than 1% of the vote counted and thousands of people still waiting in line to cast their ballot. Even four hours after polling stations closed, hundreds of people were still waiting in line:

[DeltaV]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hilla ... d-or-what/

FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.

Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term.

With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law.

[Diogenes]

To be fair she's tied at my #2. While I agree she's a terrible choice, I don't see anyone on the Republican side being any less corrupt or capable.

[TDPerk]

@ ScottL

"(Tea Party was notorious for it as well)"

No, they were not.

They were rather well known for leaving the scene of their protests cleaner than how they found them, and for being quite orderly.

[ScottL]

@ ScottL

"(Tea Party was notorious for it as well)"

No, they were not.

They were rather well known for leaving the scene of their protests cleaner than how they found them, and for being quite orderly.

Interesting take on it considering how many videos there are up on youtube, but sure whatever makes you feel good at night.

[TDPerk]

Actually, no. Youtube never shows any evidence of Tea Party protestors blocking traffic as a tactic, but solely as a result of too many people showing up.

What is also documented is the habit of leaving venues cleaner than they found them.

[hanelyp]

If you believe in personal responsibility, you'll clean up your own mess, and maybe more.

If you believe in collective responsibility, there are people paid to clean up.

[krenshala]

If everyone picks up one piece of trash more than they created every time, very soon there wouldn't be any trash outside the trashcans/dumps.

[williatw]

I

would never vote for Trump. As far as I'm concerned he is a man without moral or civil aptitude. Once again, my opinion and I recognize it.

My current order of choice would be: Sanders, Clinton\Kasich\Bush (interchangeable in my opinion and I'm originally from Ohio), Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Carson.

You care so much about Trump's "without moral or civil aptitude"; and yet Hillary Clinton is your no. 2 after Sanders who obviously won't get the Democratic nomination; furthermore Bush is out of race, and Kasich barely still in; so basically Hillary is your no. one choice. In what way would you say that Hillary (or Bill for that matter) Clinton have superior moral aptitude over Donald Trump?

To be fair she's tied at my #2. While I agree she's a terrible choice, I don't see anyone on the Republican side being any less corrupt or capable.

But you said you would never vote for Trump no matter what; so implicitly you are saying you think Hillary Clinton has more "moral or civil aptitude" than Trump does. Still waiting if you don't mind for you to explain how you came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is more moral than Donald Trump is. Since that is apparently the key to why Hillary is effectively your no. one choice while Trump is absolutely outside your consideration you must think there is a considerable "moral" difference betwixt the two...care to elaborate as to why?

[choff]

What would be even more entertaining that the current primary process would be if Sanders dropped out and Trump went independent. Then they team up on a Trump/Sanders ticket against Hillary/Cruz.

[ScottL]

I




You care so much about Trump's "without moral or civil aptitude"; and yet Hillary Clinton is your no. 2 after Sanders who obviously won't get the Democratic nomination; furthermore Bush is out of race, and Kasich barely still in; so basically Hillary is your no. one choice. In what way would you say that Hillary (or Bill for that matter) Clinton have superior moral aptitude over Donald Trump?

To be fair she's tied at my #2. While I agree she's a terrible choice, I don't see anyone on the Republican side being any less corrupt or capable.

But you said you would never vote for Trump no matter what; so implicitly you are saying you think Hillary Clinton has more "moral or civil aptitude" than Trump does. Still waiting if you don't mind for you to explain how you came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is more moral than Donald Trump is. Since that is apparently the key to why Hillary is effectively your no. one choice while Trump is absolutely outside your consideration you must think there is a considerable "moral" difference betwixt the two...care to elaborate as to why?

Your reasoning is flawed. My statement can mean exactly as it is put, but you've added meaning to it. I think she is as corrupt as Trump, but more capable than him. Me not voting for Trump is just a good decision, has nothing to do with implying any of the other candidates are great choices. He is just one I've already eliminated.

[ladajo]

I, for one, think that while Trump may be "corrupt" in some business sense, it pales by comparison for the complete disregard and even contempt of the business, legal, and governing systems that Hillary & William call me Bill have demonstrated repeatedly over the years. The utter certainty they continue to portray regarding self entitlement is mind boggling. Having them back in the White House would only further our national death spiral into money driven power politics and government corruption. It may be the final nails in our system's coffin, as the cronyism and pay to play finally cements itself in place. I really am tired of the lies and horseshit that they and people like them attempt to pour on the public to blind everyone to the facts that the corrupt pieces of shit are only in it for power and riches at the expense of the people. Now, let me tell you how I really feel...