which would be worse....

[badgolferman]

If you had to register in the opposite political party of your beliefs
and vote the party line in every election for the next 10 years?

or

If you had to become Hillary Clinton's personal servant for the next
year?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I would have to vote Republitard for the next 10 years

[Sharx35]

So you would prefer to eat out that basilisk instead?

[badgolferman]

The path the Republicans have been heading it really wouldn’t be very much
different than voting Democrat.

Do you think Hillary Clinton is a bad person? If so why did you vote for
her?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/04/2017 10:14 PM, badgolferman wrote:

>
> Do you think Hillary Clinton is a bad person? If so why did you vote for
> her?
>

Because Trump is just as harmful in the long run, and the Republican
agenda, as the party is now will turn us even quicker into a plutocracy.

I consider the Dems. the lesser of two evils.

[Charlie M. 1958]

I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the victim
of the crime of the century.

She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying that
losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but him. :-)

[JoeRaisin]

I thought Trump was slightly less undesirable than Hillary - but I still
could not bring myself to support either of them.

It isn't a Plutocracy now? Celeb-ocracy?

--
Narcissistic control freaks always consider their perceptions and
opinions to be obvious and true.
- Frank "Socrates"

[JoeRaisin]

Well... you know... except for Bernie...

No one asked her about rigging the primary?

[Mark Warner]

On 10/05/2017 11:20 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 10:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>
>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the
>> victim of the crime of the century.
>>
>> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying
>> that losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but
>> him. :-)
>
> Well... you know... except for Bernie...
>
> No one asked her about rigging the primary?

The *Democratic* *Party* gave an advantage to the *Democrat*. An
interloper like Bernie needed to score big victories in the primaries if
he wanted to be the standard bearer for a party he didn't even belong to.

Too bad the Republicans didn't do the same thing.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[JoeRaisin]

On 10/5/2017 11:52 AM, Mark Warner wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 11:20 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:
>> On 10/5/2017 10:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>
>>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the
>>> victim of the crime of the century.
>>>
>>> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying
>>> that losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but
>>> him. :-)
>>
>> Well... you know... except for Bernie...
>>
>> No one asked her about rigging the primary?
>
> The *Democratic* *Party* gave an advantage to the *Democrat*. An
> interloper like Bernie needed to score big victories in the primaries if
> he wanted to be the standard bearer for a party he didn't even belong to.
>
> Too bad the Republicans didn't do the same thing.
>

Republicans DID do the same thing. Nominated the most disgusting person
they could find.

[RobD]

JoeRaisin <joerai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 11:52 AM, Mark Warner wrote:
>> On 10/05/2017 11:20 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2017 10:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>>>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the
>>>> victim of the crime of the century.
>>>>
>>>> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying
>>>> that losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but
>>>> him. :-)
>>>
>>> Well... you know... except for Bernie...
>>>
>>> No one asked her about rigging the primary?
>>
>> The *Democratic* *Party* gave an advantage to the *Democrat*. An
>> interloper like Bernie needed to score big victories in the primaries if
>> he wanted to be the standard bearer for a party he didn't even belong to.
>>
>> Too bad the Republicans didn't do the same thing.
>>
>
> Republicans DID do the same thing. Nominated the most disgusting person
> they could find.
>
>
>

I don't know that the Democrats "nominated the most disgusting person they
could find."

It's not like the Donald was *hiding* or anything . . .

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>Because Trump is just as harmful in the long run, and the Republican
>agenda, as the party is now will turn us even quicker into a
>plutocracy.
>
>I consider the Dems. the lesser of two evils.

The Democrats are the same shit as the Republicans. They are all
wealthy and they run your life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

[JoeRaisin]

Name a current democrat more disgusting than Hillary.

Okay... That's a subjective call... but I stand by my perception.

[badgolferman]

JoeRaisin wrote:

>Name a current democrat more disgusting than Hillary.
>
>Okay... That's a subjective call... but I stand by my perception.

There are so many but I will throw out just a couple names. Pelosi,
Sharpton.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 11:19 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:

>
> It isn't a Plutocracy now?  Celeb-ocracy?
>

True, but just wait and see...The super rich will have even more power
than they do now and it will not be by virtue of hard work

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 12:43 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> The Democrats are the same shit as the Republicans. They are all
> wealthy and they run your life.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
>

I am not disputing that, but the Dems. will at least throw a few crumbs
your way as they fuck you.

[JoeRaisin]

Really? You prefer Hillary over them?

I consider them mere clowns in her shadow.

There are plenty of bad actors - my perception is that she is the worst.
Hell... she takes the award for arrogance, that's for sure.

[JoeRaisin]

How can they get more than all?

[Sharx35]

Sort of like the ole "reach-around" as one got their arse reamed, back
in the prison days a la tedw, eh?

[JoeRaisin]

That's how they get you... sucking you in to a life of dependency upon
Gummint...

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 02:02 PM, Sharx35 wrote:

>
> Sort of like the ole "reach-around" as one got their arse reamed, back
> in the prison days a la tedw, eh?
>

Well put.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 02:05 PM, JoeRaisin wrote:

>
> That's how they get you... sucking you in to a life of dependency upon
> Gummint...
>

And the Republitards make you think that by voting them in, that you are
now in "The Club"... Yeah right...That and the God and flag show,

[JoeRaisin]

Elections are competitions between con men to see who can trick more
folks into voting for them.

They throw out the trolling lines baited with various bits
pseudo-intellectual, half baked philosophies, talking points and
inflammatory rhetoric and, depending upon our pre-existing biases, we
choose to bite down on one bit of bait or the other.

Whether we get dragged into the right side of the boat or the left side
of the boat, we all end up in the same boat, floating down the same
river with the same assholes pooping on our heads.

Doesn't matter who is at the rudder, the river's course cannot be
changed - at least, from inside the boat.

[badgolferman]

JoeRaisin wrote:

>On 10/5/2017 1:45 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>>JoeRaisin wrote:
>>
>>>Name a current democrat more disgusting than Hillary.
>>>
>>>Okay... That's a subjective call... but I stand by my perception.
>>
>>
>>There are so many but I will throw out just a couple names. Pelosi,
>>Sharpton.
>>
>
>Really? You prefer Hillary over them?
>
>I consider them mere clowns in her shadow.
>
>There are plenty of bad actors - my perception is that she is the
>worst. Hell... she takes the award for arrogance, that's for sure.

If faced with the prospect of voting for Clinton or Sanders I would
have held my nose while filling in the circle for her. As despicable
as I find her, I think she would be more apt to recognize businesses
and the wealthy keep people employed.

[badgolferman]

You are tripping all over the class warfare propaganda leaflets
scattered by the Democrats. Stop being envious of the rich (ambiguous
definition) just because they have something. It doesn't matter if
they worked for it or inherited it, why should others get to take it
from them?

[JoeRaisin]

Sanders would be more predictable than Hillary.

His decisions would have been based on his beliefs and his policies
would have had a very hard time becoming law.

Her decisions would have been based on whoever paid her more and the
Clinton Political War Machine would hard to stop.

[Socrates]

On 10/5/2017 7:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the victim
> of the crime of the century.

If she had intuition and a sense of patriotism that matched her IQ she
would have never run. She had too much baggage and too many liabilities
that could never get past a large percentage of male voters primal
instincts.

Few men would admit it but...., liability #1: She's intelligent. #2:
She's assertive. #3: She's ugly. #4: She has no sex appeal (and her
history with Bill suggests that she is a bum lay). #5: Thanks to #4 she
already is seen as having played the victim card instead of kicking Bill
to the curb.

No matter what kind of evidence is brought forth about outside
influences in the election, it won't change anyone's negative
perceptions of her.

> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying that
> losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but him. :-)

Given the plethora of evidence of what a male chauvinist pig Trump is I
imagine that most of the women (and a lot of the men) audience were
nodding in agreement while simultaneously wishing she would just STFU
and go away.

[Socrates]

Corporatocracy: A type of government in which huge corporations, through
bribes, gifts, and the funding of ad campaigns that oppose candidates
they don't like, become the driving force behind the executive, judicial
and legislative branches of what was formerly a democracy.

For example: the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen's United.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 10/5/2017 2:04 PM, Socrates wrote:

>> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying that
>> losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but him. :-)
>
> Given the plethora of evidence of what a male chauvinist pig Trump is I
> imagine that most of the women (and a lot of the men) audience were
> nodding in agreement while simultaneously wishing she would just STFU
> and go away.
>
>
>

She did make me laugh, though, when Fallon asked her about Trump
publicly bashing her "What Happened" book. She held up her new kiddy
picture book version of "It Takes a Village" that she was plugging, and
said something to the effect of, "Maybe this is more his speed."

[Fred Exley]

On 10/5/17 12:04 PM, Socrates wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 7:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>
>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the victim
>> of the crime of the century.
>
> If she had intuition and a sense of patriotism that matched her IQ she
> would have never run.  She had too much baggage and too many liabilities
> that could never get past a large percentage of male voters primal
> instincts.
>
> Few men would admit it but...., liability #1: She's intelligent. #2:
> She's assertive. #3: She's ugly. #4: She has no sex appeal

The same can be said of Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Golda Meir,
Dianne Feinstein and myriad other successful elected women. As usual,
your theories are full of shit.


She lost because she got caught being more psychopathically Nixonian
than Nixon.

[Mark Warner]

I gotta agree with Fred on this one (although I think the Nixon
comparison ends with the paranoia). Sure, there were misogynous/sexist
elements to her opposition (just like there were racist elements to
Obama's), but the nation would have elected a woman, regardless of the
characteristics Frank listed. Just not *this* woman.

Keep in mind that she garnered 3 million more voters that did Trump,
just not in the right places. You can point to any number of reasons
that she lost, but the important ones IMO (the last minute Comey
"reopening" of the investigation, setting up the email server in the
first place, and her just being an entitled, arrogant asshole) were all
of her own making.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 02:57 PM, badgolferman wrote:

>
> You are tripping all over the class warfare propaganda leaflets
> scattered by the Democrats. Stop being envious of the rich (ambiguous
> definition) just because they have something. It doesn't matter if
> they worked for it or inherited it, why should others get to take it
> from them?
>

You just are not very good at following the bouncing ball...Who said
anything about being envious of someone who worked harder, was smarter,
or luckier than I am ?

The deck is stacked and the super rich are the dealers....Forget party
politics...I am not foolish enough to fall for the idea that a Democrat
is looking out for me...It's just when it comes to things like consumer
protection, workers rights, etc. they are more apt to throw me a bone.

[Sharx35]

Yup.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 10/05/2017 05:43 PM, Mark Warner wrote:

>
> I gotta agree with Fred on this one (although I think the Nixon
> comparison ends with the paranoia). Sure, there were misogynous/sexist
> elements to her opposition (just like there were racist elements to
> Obama's), but the nation would have elected a woman, regardless of the
> characteristics Frank listed. Just not *this* woman.
>
> Keep in mind that she garnered 3 million more voters that did Trump,
> just not in the right places. You can point to any number of reasons
> that she lost, but the important ones IMO (the last minute Comey
> "reopening" of the investigation, setting up the email server in the
> first place, and her just being an entitled, arrogant asshole) were all
> of her own making.
>

I can remember just before the election, there was a panel of talking
heads giving their predictions of the election...This was on NPR, mind
you...Everyone was in agreement that Clinton would win..They asked this
one guy who was either a journalist or a Democrat strategist, who was
also black for his take...He said that Clinton would lose and they all
snickered...He went on to say that she was not liked by people and could
not close the big deal..He then read off all her political loses, which
started with her being booted from the Watergate investigation, all the
way through her Secretary Of State blunders....I thought he was nuts,
but he's the guy taking bows for his prediction prowess.

[Socrates]

On 10/5/2017 2:43 PM, Mark Warner wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 04:18 PM, Fred Exley wrote:
>> On 10/5/17 12:04 PM, Socrates wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2017 7:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>>>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the victim
>>>> of the crime of the century.
>>>
>>> If she had intuition and a sense of patriotism that matched her IQ she
>>> would have never run. She had too much baggage and too many
>>> liabilities that could never get past a large percentage of male
>>> voters primal instincts.
>>>
>>> Few men would admit it but...., liability #1: She's intelligent. #2:
>>> She's assertive. #3: She's ugly. #4: She has no sex appeal
>>
>> The same can be said of Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Golda Meir,
>> Dianne Feinstein and myriad other successful elected women. As usual,
>> your theories are full of shit.
>>
>> She lost because she got caught being more psychopathically Nixonian
>> than Nixon.

> I gotta agree with Fred on this one (although I think the Nixon
> comparison ends with the paranoia).

Feinstein? California? LOL.

> Sure, there were misogynous/sexist elements to her opposition (just like
> there were racist elements to Obama's), but the nation would have elected
> a woman, regardless of the characteristics Frank listed. Just not *this*
> woman.

Which was kind of my point.

> Keep in mind that she garnered 3 million more voters that did Trump,
> just not in the right places. You can point to any number of reasons
> that she lost, but the important ones IMO (the last minute Comey
> "reopening" of the investigation, setting up the email server in the
> first place, and her just being an entitled, arrogant asshole) were all
> of her own making.

"Of her own making," "entitled, arrogant," again, back to who she is.
"Right places" was implied.

[Fred Exley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbygriZT1Xw

[Fred Exley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU

[JoeRaisin]

Yup.

that's where we're going... if we're not already there

[RobD]

JoeRaisin <joerai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 12:22 PM, RobD wrote:
>> JoeRaisin <joerai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2017 11:52 AM, Mark Warner wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2017 11:20 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:

>>>>> On 10/5/2017 10:27 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I caught Hillary on the Tonight Show last night. It was disgusting the
>>>>>> way everyone, including Fallon, fawned over her like she was the
>>>>>> victim of the crime of the century.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> She was pretty brutal in her remarks about Trump, basically saying
>>>>>> that losing would have been easier to take if it been to anybody but
>>>>>> him. :-)
>>>>>

>>>>> Well... you know... except for Bernie...
>>>>>
>>>>> No one asked her about rigging the primary?
>>>>
>>>> The *Democratic* *Party* gave an advantage to the *Democrat*. An
>>>> interloper like Bernie needed to score big victories in the primaries if
>>>> he wanted to be the standard bearer for a party he didn't even belong to.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad the Republicans didn't do the same thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Republicans DID do the same thing. Nominated the most disgusting person
>>> they could find.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know that the Democrats "nominated the most disgusting person they
>> could find."
>>
>> It's not like the Donald was *hiding* or anything . . .

>>
>
> Name a current democrat more disgusting than Hillary.

Well, now you're changing the rules.

If it has to be a Democrat . . . I don't know enough about them to really
say. Her husband, maybe. But even if they found the "most disgusting
person they could find [among the Democrats], that's still not necessarily
the "most disgusting person they could find."

Donald has been right there in plain sight, claiming he could grab 'me by
the pussy, making references to a female reporter's month period, claiming
he he get away with murder in the middle of 5th Avenue and his supporters
still wouldn't care (which is probably *true,* but still disgusting),
emphasizing how much he loved "the poorly educated" for their role in
getting him the nomination . . .

All of this was *before* the election. There has been plenty more sense,
but you get my point, I hope.

I don't know that Hillary would be this "Great President." I rather doubt
it. I don't think she's any "less corrupt" than DJT.

But in terms of the "Oh God, what now factor" of being disgusting, if the
Democrats were trying to find the most disgusting person they could, I
don't know why they wouldn't have simply picked DJT to begin with.

Just for two recent examples:

[Paraphrasing] While in Puerto Rico: "So . . . what's your death count?
Doesn't really compare with Katrina, does it?"

And that stunt throwing paper towels to the Puerto Rican people (iOS won't
just let me type "Puerto Ricans" there . . . odd) . . . . Can you *really*
imagine HRC being that *continually* tone-deaf?

I can't.

For sheer disgusting, DJT beats *every* politician who comes to mind, and a
Cardinal or three as well.

[JoeRaisin]

And that's why I couldn't bring myself to support either of them.

When both major parties go rooting around the bottom of the barrel for
their candidates I'm not giving them a vote.

The only difference in them being that candidate DJT was elected by the
Republican Primary voters while candidate HRC was selected by the DNC
before the Primary even started.

I do believe DJT was the lesser of two evils but even then, I could not
support him with my vote. I didn't /want/ either of them in office so I
left it up to the rest of you to choose your poison (knowing I would
have to drink it along with you).

Just think, if it hadn't been for the electoral college preventing
California from dictating the election, you may have gotten your wish.