BUSTERHYMAN
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Posts
- 11,196
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,125
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Chi-Town Hustler
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Why does hillary clinton suck?
- Thread starter category8
- Start date
- b.c.,
Precisely the point everyone here is making. You "just look at the career and life of Hillary." Why not TRUMP'S?
And while looking at that "career and life of Hillary" apparently much of her work and the Clinton Foundation's work on behalf of children is conveniently OVERLOOKED, as opposed to the Trump Foundation and HIS work on behalf of...... WHO? Other than himself?
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
The sad thing is, it isn't just the trump foundation that needs a bit of a look. I'm reading stories about cuba, gas lighting, him purposefully discriminating against black people in his early days, being sued left and right. I'm even reading about his fortunes dropping like rock. There are women out there who can't even watch the guy because his debate style/way of being in general reminds them of exs who psychologically and physically abused them. Not to mention people his whole entire tax shenanigans.
More and more hillary history isn't looking so bad. Then again you'd have to be a certain type of person to notice that.
- b.c.,
Even IF, by ANY rationale, Clinton can be said to be equally as corrupt as Trump, one STILL cannot escape the reality of each candidate's CONSTITUENCY, each candidate's PARTY (and their respective ideology), each party's PLATFORM, and what each candidate has stated she or he stands for, will do, and WANTS to do.
So if it's all the same to those so-called "not really interested in U.S. politics, problems, et al" who manage to have a lot to say about it ANYWAY,
I'd just as soon NOT have a bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic blow hard, who speaks of banning Muslims, building a wall to keep out Mexicans, and instituting nationwide STOP AND FRISK policies on minorities, while simultaneously abandoning NATO allies, deregulating big business, and cutting taxes for those wealthy fkrs who, theoretically, MIGHT allow SOME of that wealth to trickle (as in piss) down their fkng legs to the REST of us "minions"..... thankee very much.
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
I agree. You also forgot, someone who evades taxes, makes deals across america laws, casually talks about killing innocent people, is in bed with people from other countries and generally has the skin thickness of wet tissue.
- b.c.,
I agree. You also forgot, someone who evades taxes, makes deals across america laws, casually talks about killing innocent people, is in bed with people from other countries and generally has the skin thickness of wet tissue.
Yes all of that too.
In the minds of conservatives, tacit supporters of Trump, and those of like ilk, Clinton's handling of emails, and innuendos as to how contributors to the Clinton Foundation may have personally benefited, somehow equate to Trump's stiffing of people who've worked for him, his discrimination against black tenants, his seminars and "university" that failed to deliver what was promised, his questionable charitable contributions, and all the rest. It's a form of equivocation on their part for the purposes of making Clinton out to be equally as deplorable as Trump. She is NOT.
The False Equivalence of Clinton and Trump’s Negatives
And IF she were, the difference is, Hillary hasn't run or risen to contention for the presidency by riding upon the slithery back of divisive, hate based, bigoted RHETORIC.
To SOME people, that doesn't matter. They'd sooner question Democrats for the selection of Clinton than question and scrutinize how the F***** they chose a demagogue like Trump. WE know how. He said all the nasty shit THEY'VE been saying and believing for QUITE A WHILE, that's how.
As I've noted before, voters in Louisiana once had to make a choice between what was locally billed as "the klansman or the crook" in a governor's race.
For MOST of us the decision wasn't even CLOSE.
Last edited:
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
It's actually pretty amazing when you look at it. I'm not a psychologist or anything but watching people purposefully create blind spots for themselves is really interesting when you get past the fact that they're doing it for trump. Both in the short run and the long. They've been flat out ignoring every last fucked up thing he has said and done. Only for it to come back and bite them in the ass. This new cuba thing circulating around about trump won't kill his political career or damage him in the eyes of those who support him but that is about the worse thing that could ever happen to him.
The more people ignore him the more present he gets. The more they try to act like his negatives (of which there are many) don't exist the more he leans on them and the worse they get. The less he and his supporters pay attention the more they do it. And the more they do it the more people can recognize it. So every time he or they try to attack someone or something else the more they leave themselves exposed to someone or something else. I'm guessing thats the consequence of being so focused on simply winning.
I mean all of it may not make that much of a difference now. The guy is still pretty teflon but whoever said people were only after him. There isn't just one donald trump out there. There are many. And the more he telegraphs himself the more people know what to look for in others like him. He knows it and they know it. The only thing he and people like him are desperately betting on is other people not knowing it.
Of course clinton isn't as bad as donald trump. It's to his benefit though for people not to know or realize that. The more people equate the two as being the same the more likely those people are to be susceptible to his lies and bullshit. And the more isolated they are, the more likely it is for him to control them. Gaslighting. Women who've been abused see this shit as bright as day.
- b.c.,
And here's yet ANOTHER excellent example of what TRUMP'S constituency is made of:
US paper facing threats for endorsing Hillary Clinton
from the above:
"A conservative Arizona newspaper is facing death threats and losing subscriptions after it broke with tradition by endorsing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for US president..."
"The...Arizona Republic, the state's largest newspaper, announced in an editorial on Tuesday that it is backing a Democrat for the first time since it was founded in 1890..."
"The paper's editorial board said that while Clinton did not lack flaws, she was also the "superior choice" by far."
"...the editors had expected blowback and did not regret its decision. Despite the threats against the Arizona Republic, its editorial board feels "very good" about endorsing Clinton..."
"USA Today set another precedent on Thursday, when its editorial board took a side in a presidential race for the first time in its 34-year history..."
"Publishing scathing criticism of Trump, the national paper urged readers to oppose a candidate it said is "dangerous" and "unfit for the presidency." It went on to call him "erratic," "ill-equipped," "reckless," someone with a "checkered" business past, and a "serial liar... Authoritarian and dangerous..."
I'd say that last paragraph pretty much COVERS it.
US paper facing threats for endorsing Hillary Clinton
from the above:
"A conservative Arizona newspaper is facing death threats and losing subscriptions after it broke with tradition by endorsing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for US president..."
"The...Arizona Republic, the state's largest newspaper, announced in an editorial on Tuesday that it is backing a Democrat for the first time since it was founded in 1890..."
"The paper's editorial board said that while Clinton did not lack flaws, she was also the "superior choice" by far."
"...the editors had expected blowback and did not regret its decision. Despite the threats against the Arizona Republic, its editorial board feels "very good" about endorsing Clinton..."
"USA Today set another precedent on Thursday, when its editorial board took a side in a presidential race for the first time in its 34-year history..."
"Publishing scathing criticism of Trump, the national paper urged readers to oppose a candidate it said is "dangerous" and "unfit for the presidency." It went on to call him "erratic," "ill-equipped," "reckless," someone with a "checkered" business past, and a "serial liar... Authoritarian and dangerous..."
I'd say that last paragraph pretty much COVERS it.
The USAToday Editorial is scathing...
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
BUSTERHYMAN
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Posts
- 11,196
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,125
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Chi-Town Hustler
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Marty You have to go back to October 26, 1947... Find Hillary Clinton's father and give him a condom...
![images]()
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Precisely nothing. The thread title is quite simply, "Why does Hillary Clinton suck?"
That is the simple question. It is not, even if Hillary does or doesn't suck, does she suck less than Trump?
I don't share your aggressive controlling ego.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,904
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,146
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Wow... When USA TODAY, the K-Mart of journalism, comes out to denounce Trump, that isn't only scathing, it's a public indictment.
A/B
Yep they've never endorsed a candidate ever. It's what many have been saying all along that this is not an ordinary election between competing ideologies. It is an election were the fate of a nation and the world hangs in the balance. A man struggling with multiple personality flaws has risen ready to take the country on a descent just a year ago no one thought possible. He's done so much it's hard to even recall all the low points from discussing penis size to going after a comedian to going after a Gold Star family on the national and international stage.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,904
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,146
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Just my opinion here, based on what I've read and people that I talk to, but I think by insulting a Gold Star family, no matter their race or creed, was a tipping point for many Americans who "support our troops" in their assessment of Trump's judgement and mental abilities. Even those who still have qualms about Muslims being in the U.S. armed services, they were taken aback. He really put his stinky foot in his mouth on that one!
A/B
A/B
Last edited:
It's pretty clear to me that b.c. and Sargon20 are working for the Hillary Clinton Campaign as one of their $100,000,000 troll army.
They cannot absolutely-in-any-way-shape-or-form type anything remotely measured or even slightly unbiased. If they are not working for the Clinton campaign, they are two of the biggest asskissing Clinton fanbois this side of the equator.
They come on this site AGGRESSIVELY spewing at least seven or eight pro-Hillary links a day... they are always in bold and size 6 fonts... it's getting a little fucking old at this point.
I can only agree about their aggression and controlling ways... and they are the "good guys"?!?!? With good guys like them... who the fuck needs bad guys?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,904
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,146
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
^ Whatever... So, you would rather have them support Trump, then? The "alternatives" to either, on the ballot, are nothing to give me any hope.
A/B
A/B
That seems like an extreme representation of the options here... you either support Clinton like a sycophant or support Trump like a sycophant? Those are the only two fucking choices?
Why can't people just see these candidates for who they are and not try and worship them like demigods?
I'm voting for Hillary but I am not whipped up in the frenzy that the DNC and media are ginning up. Hillary was a marginal senator, an AWFUL secretary of state... the worst secretary of state in my lifetime... she destabilized a good portion of the world and that destabilization led to thousands and thousands of deaths in Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Cackling over the death of Gaddafi when he was being tortured to death shows that she is a HATEFUL woman who has a lump of coal where her heart should be.
If she hadn't had such a hard on to oust Assad from power and install a Saudi Arabian caliphate... THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A SYRIAN CIVIL WAR... THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A REFUGEE CRISIS... THOUSANDS OF MOTHERS WOULD HAVE THEIR CHILDREN ALIVE TODAY IF IT WASN'T FOR CLINTON'S ZEAL FOR REGIME CHANGE.
She is as dangerous a human being as they come... she is the grim-fucking-reaper of US foreign policy. The most duplicitous and crooked secretary of state since Henry Kissinger.
Chrysippus
Superior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Posts
- 4,566
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,827
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Oregon (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
You're a gutless armchair quarterback with no accomplishments of your own and an uninformed fool with little grasp on recent middle-east affairs and history. But you're marvellous with capital letters.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Posts
- 13,904
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 31,146
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Seattle, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
@tripod - You make yourself out to be SO superior, while trying cut down anyone who is just hoping for a reasonable outcome in this election. "Reasonable" meaning keeping a total, fucking, greedy, racist maniac from winning it!
You are obviously calling me out as one of the "sycophants" here, and yet, you yourself had no response or acknowledgement of my previous post, showing that I am obviously not blind about Clinton's flaws... At this point you just come off as being a selfish, egotistical jerk.
A/B
Last edited:
Similar threads
