CLINTON HIT MAN LARRY NICHOLS HILLARY MUST BE STOPPED - Page 3

I just sent you PMs. I can post again! 😊

LOL at your take on Hillary. She is as smug as they come.

I said, "So the honesty in Trump is that he honestly is an immoral man who has cheated on his wife (wives?)?"

beetree said, "By George! I think you've got it!"

Yes, I do get it but, you don't. Why? Because you see Trump's honesty as meaning he is an honest person. This in spite of agreeing that he is an immoral person. I mean, immoral people are not honest people.

I know, but...but Hillary, or is it but...but Bill? You know, the one who isn't even running for president.

I never said that I "see Trump's honesty as meaning he is an honest person." I take it back then, that you have the finesse of understanding. We will have a better discussion if you don't rework my posts to put words in my mouth.

Trump is honest in his presentation of his faults, which include "immoral" parts. His appeal and leeway given by his "cultists" is exactly because he lacks political polish. You want your black and white vision to be the benchmark, but honestly, there are shades of gray.

Hillary, is never honest in her political self as presentation, she is a studied amalgamation of what she wants, or thinks people want. That is the basis of the "basket of deplorables" distrust and why she is continually perplexed as to how in the world she is not defeating Trump by a landslide.

So, yes, one can be honestly immoral. A flawed being is acceptable because it makes us equals by a shared imperfection to our existence. One can be immorally honest, too. Presenting only the picture of perfection is the illusion, when the truth of reality is an unattainable goal.

The latter is the better hypocrite.

@beetree, your post is ridiculous.

You assume that Trump's faults, as you call them, are seen by him as faults. If he was aware of them being faults he wouldn't put them out there. It works because his cultists don't see them as faults as well. So does he believe the crap he spews or is he manipulating the masses?

You don't think Trump is just as serious as Hillary, maybe even more so, when it comes to presenting an image of who he wants others to see? He tells a crowd he knows more about the Bible than anyone. He knows more about ISIS than the generals. He knows more about the US tax system than anyone else. He knows who the Mexican government is sending us. That isn't trying to project an image of who he is not, that is, someone who is well-informed (or rather, more informed about everything than anyone else)? He tries to project an image of strength and, in his words, stamina. Really? What has he actually done to be considered strong? Serve in the military? No, he had a case of disappearing bone spurs. Or is it having meltdowns on twitter like he's a Kardashian? Or is it mocking POWs? Or is it threatening anyone who hurts his feelings with a lawsuit? Or is it simply the fact that he says he's strong that makes him strong? His whole life is a facade. It's a carefully constructed image for public consumption.

A flawed person is acceptable? I would call a pedophile or serial killer a flawed person but I wouldn't find him acceptable nor would I I say it makes us equals. Yes, we can all relate to the concept of being flawed but we all can't relate to the flaws themselves. I don't see Trump's flaws making him my equal. I never cheated on my wife. I don't talk or think about women the way he does. I certainly don't try and grab their vaginas or try and seduce married women. I find those behaviors as being a reflection of what his father taught him. The example his father set. My father didn't teach me that that behavior is acceptable. I have never even been to a strip club. So no, Trump is not my equal; he is beneath me.

You either want to understand where the base support is coming from, or you want to bully through with your point of view. I am not going to parse the deliberate tangents that don't apply to the idea, and only serve to deflect and then ignore my premise. Concepts, I am dealing with, not particulars for you to conflate.

No skin off my nose. Call me what ever you like. You can't explain the fact that Hillary in her thoroughly vetted construction isn't a sure thing. Don't say I didn't try to point out the objection to the willfully blind. Trump actually said it, which shows he does possess a certain clarity, that it is only because he is running against Hillary instead of someone else, that he has done as well as he has.

You have to appeal to the emotion for the reason to follow. That is how to change minds. I doubt you read that article I posted on the thread, Good to Know.

Appealing to emotion is straight out of Mein Kampf.

Also, there is something missing from the assessment that Trump is only doing as well as he is because he's running against Hillary. That is the fact that he was running against a slew of republicans beforehand. And, if we consider how much of the republican vote he was getting during the primaries it's clear he was the favorite but was not the choice of the majority. This means that if he is getting a better percentage of voters now it is probably due more to the republicans who didn't vote for him during the primaries now getting behind him for the simple reason that he is the republican nominee. This says more about the republican voters than it does Hillary.

Lol. Mentioning such a source won't change the facts that work and effect change. Changes can be judged, after all.

I think Trump's path to the nomination will be examined and argued for years to come. It was a huge mistake to field so many candidates for the Republicans.

That Hillary has to work so hard with all her presidential grooming with her fund raising advantages and star powered machine grinding relentlessly in her favor, still she is now forced to create a wooing plan for those 50's nostalgic minded, white male men who are Trump's base. I don't think it will work, because, well she can't change the one thing that can change their minds. She can't change being Hillary.

Yes. It's a fact that the Holocaust was an effective method to wipe out an entire race of people but something being effective and something being right are not the same thing. So just because an appeal to emotion, rather than reason, is effective doesn't mean that what is being sought after is the right thing. In Trump's case what is being sought is not even real, it's imaginary. The wall, for example, is never going to happen.

How much of Hillary's problems are due to her being a woman? The fact that Trump can have a rather primitive opinion of women and it doesn't bother his base shows just what any woman candidate would be up against. She is the candidate yet she is being held accountable for what her husband may or may not have done. Bill cheated so his wife, Hillary, is not qualified to be president meanwhile Trump cheated on his wife but that is OK. Yeah, Hillary, or any woman candidate, has to overcome that double standard. It wouldn't matter who the woman facing Trump was, he would still attack her based on her sex and his followers would be amused and starstruck. That's what's sad, or maybe it's good, about this election. There has been a dark side of this country that has openly revealed itself by its adoration for a savior that has validated their bigotry. When a Trump supporter says, "I like Trump because he isn't afraid to say what's on his mind," he really means that Trump is saying what's on that supporter's mind but he is too afraid to say it himself.

You crack me up. You mentioned Mein Kampf to elicit an emotional response and in an attempt to be "right".

Thank you for acknowledging my statement that "changes can be judged". That noncommittal statement does indeed show that, therein, it does exist for the opportunity to be right, or wrong.

I know the "wall" of Trump will never happen. He might think it will, he certainly says that. Do you think Hillary will be able to make her promise of debt free, tuition free college? That to me is just as imaginary. It is as unfeasible and unreasonable as Trump's wall. Certainly hits the right emotive spots for younger voters, though.

Hillary's problems aren't because she's a woman. She's the wrong woman to represent the First Woman President because of her flaws. You see no problem with her bargain with the Devil path she's been following ever since she lost to Obama, and endorsed him in return for her gilded, planned, unauthentic, dishonest soul, and ask Bernie... rigged path. Of course, to accomplish her ambitions, she necessarily would end up being cheating Bill's enabler.  She is not naturally bright, she works hard because she has to, and it is her driving ambition— not her concern for people that spurs her on.  A superb social climber, she made the right choice with catching ahold of Bill's coat tails.

Everything I have learned by reading and by talking with people who knew Hillary during her student days and early career suggests that her greatest skill was in cultivating powerful patrons who could help her along. Although her charms completely elude me, I am told that her full schmooze mode is highly engaging in a face-to-face encounter, and long ago mastered the art of creating the impression that she is something special and that your encounter with her is somehow meaningful.

Life magazine anointed the budding social activist as a voice of her generation, which no doubt sweetened her application to Yale, then a hotbed of radicalism.

One other secret of elite school admissions. They love student politicians who win office as president of their class in high school or college Hillary was class president at Wellesley just as anti-war activism became fashionable. The admissions officers' theory is that other students know better than everyone else who among them is really special (true enough) and that those who win elective office reflect those who are destined to go further. This corollary is much more dubious. In the schools I attended, I found the student pols were every bit as creepy as real world pols. More so in some cases. They mostly ran for student office out of the conviction it would be a career boost, and the petty offices they sought were mostly meaningless exercises in triviality.

Upon graduating, Bill quickly landed a professorship teaching law. But Hillary had no prospects and stayed behind in New Haven,Conn. Eventually, a Yale law professor tapped her to work on the House impeachment staff. Again, she had the right connections. Hitching her wagon to Bill propelled her into the statehouse, then the White House and now the Senate.

Hillary, in other words, is a consummate networker and climber. 
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/how_smart_is_hillary.html#ixzz4MbxjOHMe 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I don't think you've had any sort of a meaningful conversation with any woman who actively supports Trump's message. I happen to have women friends of both stripes, and my Facebook feed is suffering a DID. You project too much in your leap to condemn those who don't think exactly like you do. It is like you can't wait to fill up your own hate bucket. You want to be a controlling, hating mind reader. That just might be scarier than a boorish, clumsy, impulsively spoken Trump.

We are about to get screwed for the next four years, no matter what.

@beetree, you try way too hard to read between the lines and get into my head. I won't do that with you but simply address your points.

No, I didn't mention Mein Kampf for some emotional reaction (although you readily obliged); I mentioned it because it was an appropriate document to reference to make my point about emotional appeals. Emotional appeals can serve the good but they can also serve the bad, that's the point.

Of course one can be right or wrong, when it comes to facts, but when we are talking about subjective opinions then right and wrong take on different meanings.

Is free college as imaginary as the wall? No, it's not as it is something that does exist already. A wall? Let's see, well we have the Great Wall in China but how well did that work in keeping the Mongols out? The Maginot Line was not a wall but it was fortified with machine guns and it didn't work. A wall is impossible. Free college, as Sanders has championed is not impossible. It may be improbable but not because of feasibility but a lack of will. The Iraq war was not feasible but where there was a will...Also, the fact that it is out there right now as an issue means that eventually it may happen as long as people remain behind it. When was the last time Trump even mentioned the wall?

I don't pretend that Hillary is a saint. In fact, I have already stated that I support her over Trump because of issues like the Supreme Court. Look at Pence, the guy is a religious lunatic yet Trump chose him. You have Rudy Giuliani, a racist law and order despot who will be part of Trump's crew. I don't want a religious police state. The Founders definitely did not want that. Trump has admitted that he sexually assaulted women (grabbing a woman's vagina is sexual assault) and said he gets away with it because of his celebrity status. Yet Hillary is the elite who doesn't understand how most Americans live. Most American men would be in jail if they did what Trump did. Enabler? Ask Melania if she thinks her husband is a sexual predator and see what she says to defend him. Ask her what she thinks about her husband cheating as well as his attempts to seduce a married woman and see how she defends him. Does that make Hillary right? I would not be that presumptuous to think that I can judge how a wife reacts to how her husband behaves. Does that make Hillary and Melania wrong to stand by their husbands in the face of incontrovertible evidence of their transgressions which go beyond the moral to the illegal? Again, I can't judge them for that as you have.

You refer to Trump as some who is boorish and clumsy and speaks impulsively. No, what he said on that tape went beyond words. He admitted to sexual assault. Don't ignore that part. If I grabbed your vagina you would have me arrested and rightfully so.

You say I have a bucket of hate. No, that is you trying to get into my head again. I don't hate anyone. I don't even hate anchovies on pizza. I may dislike certain people but I hate no one. If someone can make you hate him then he has power over you. I don't hate Trump. I don't need him for anything. I don't look to him for love or attention. If he becomes president it would disappoint me but it wouldn't make me angry. You forget, I'm a white male, I win regardless. And no, I don't want to be controlling. I have my own life to live so I don't have the time or energy, let alone the desire, to try and control others. People will think what they want and a few will understand why they think a certain way. Most won't and there is nothing I can do to change that so why would I bother? Joanro will never change her mind about something even in the face of facts. I accept that she has mental and/or emotional issues. If I respond to her posts it's not because I think I can change her mind because I know I can't. She arrived at her beliefs irrationally so how could she be swayed by my rational arguments? I respond because there may be someone out there who is willing to hear a rational argument and isn't going to ignore the facts. Like with her latest post about the emails. She said it was something Hillary wrote when the facts say otherwise. Joanro won't be affected by the truth but someone else might.

You want to know what hate is? Go to Hans' forum. You probably have. He banned me for stating facts. He allowed other posters to say all kinds of hateful things to me. He said some pretty nasty things to me. But no one there was ever able to challenge me on the facts. That's hate and anger brought out by the truth. They didn't get angry about lies but rather the truth because it's easier for most people to accept a lie that they want to believe is true rather than a fact which makes them question what they believe. It's funny because Hans like to say that if you resort to insults you have lost. Well, if that's the case, then that forum is full of losers. But I don't hate them.

The difference between Hillary supporters and Trump supporters is that Hillary supporters accept her in spite of her faults which they readily acknowledge. Trump supporters accept him because of his faults. I might hold my nose voting for Hillary but that's better than salivating like some Pavlovian dog while voting for Trump. The thing is, Hillary doesn't smell any worse than most of those who have run for president before her. Reagan stunk. Both Bushes stunk. Clinton stunk. Obama stunk. Romney stunk. Gore stunk. The idea that she stinks worse is to have amnesia. The idea that Trump doesn't stink at all is to have anosmia.