37 thoughts on “Trump Bashes Hillary”

  1. Not the only good thing… President Trump seems like it is putting fear into people who otherwise think enhanced Executive power is a good thing. I said this months ago, prior to any primary; if all Trump does is get others to reduce the power of the Executive and the Federal government overall, then he is worth a vote.

    1. I wonder how “President Trump” would feel about funding R/D to find a cure for aging? All you would have to do is convince him somehow that he might live long enough to be a beneficiary of said technology. “If they develop it sir…who knows? we could make you as young as your daughter Ivanka is…wink, wink”. Of course if he were regressed to her age she would then be too old for him to date.

      https://www.fightaging.org/

        1. If Trump had his old hair back, it would be a 10 point bump in the polls.

          Of course if Hillary were young again, she would be even more unappealing than she is now. Strange!

    2. ” I said this months ago, prior to any primary; if all Trump does is get others to reduce the power of the Executive and the Federal government overall, then he is worth a vote.”

      I see absolutely no reason that a businessman used to almost unlimited say in what happens is suddenly going to give up the ability to dictate.

      He’ll want more autonomy…not less.

      1. He’ll want more autonomy…not less.

        I don’t think I said one thing that disagrees with that sentiment.

        1. You didn’t… get others to reduce the power

          Trump (or anybody) can want anything, but the position comes with checks and balances if our other elected would start to do their job. Instead they put in rules like automatic salary increases for themselves so they don’t have to record a vote. They’ve figured out ways to avoid responsibility at almost every turn.

          So they will have a choice of rolling over and giving the next president everything he asks for or doing their job. The media will actually help them this time.

        2. Ah I see… you’re thinking that the Dems will work hard to limit executive power since they don’t own the White House.

          Well, the Dems only do that when they don’t own the White House. When they do…they loosen the reins. nYou’ll note that Pelosi and Reid never lifted a finger to stop Obama from expanding executive power beyond it’s Constitutional limits.

          Here’s a classic example:

          In Ma, when necessary (death retirement etc) the Guv was able to appoint an interim US Senator.

          When Mitt Romney became Guv and he was in the position to appoint an interim US Senator, they took the power away.

          When a Dem got back into the Guv’s office and HE had the opportunity to appoint a US Senator – they gave him back the power.

          See how that works?

          Absolutely not one iota of principle exists in those hacks…except the principle of increasing their power.

          1. Having any Republican as president, but especially Trump, would get the press to do their real job for a change. As the InstaPundit says, today’s press are nothing more than Democrat operatives with bylines. Should (God forbid) Hillary win, you can count on at least four more years of the kind of reporting we’ve had with Obama. The press have their noses so far up Obama’s ass, if the man farted, he’d blow out all of their eardrums.

            As for Congress, Trump as president might also be enough to get them to do their jobs once again. It’s a long shot, I know, but President Hillary (gag, choke, puke!) would be a “historic” figure like Obama and therefore untouchable no matter what she does.

            Like it or not, Trump is almost certain to be the Republican nominee and Hillary the Democrat nominee. No third party candidate is going to get more than a tiny percentage of the votes. Given that reality, I have no alternative but to vote for Trump. I voted for Cruz in the primaries but the thought of Hillary in office and getting to nominate several supreme court justices is enough to convince me to vote for Trump, reservations notwithstanding. Trump isn’t a conservative but Hillary stands from just about everything I despise about American politicians.

          2. you’re thinking that the Dems will work hard to limit executive power

            I didn’t say that either. Let me help:

            You’ll note that Pelosi Hastert and Reid McConnell never lifted a finger to stop Obama Bush from expanding executive power beyond it’s Constitutional limits.

          3. “I didn’t say that either. Let me help:”

            Actually you weren’t explicit about what you were saying:

            “You’ll note that Hastert and McConnell never lifted a finger to stop Bush from expanding executive power beyond it’s Constitutional limits.”

            And this still needs a level of interpretation – just to be sure I understand you.

            Are you saying that you think the GOP will work hard to put limits on executive power if Trump gets into office?

            If that is what you are saying, why would you think that?

          4. I’m not focused on the politicians. If Trump was President, do you think the lead would be the Democrats sit-in or that the DOJ no longer knows where the shooters wife is? Do you think the media would just say, “well, if the FBI says they don’t know a motive, then they know what they are doing?” Heck no. We would hear how incompetent the federal government is. We wouldn’t be having votes to give them access to the our internet history without a warrant.

          5. Are you saying that you think the GOP will work hard to put limits on executive power if Trump gets into office?

            If that is what you are saying, why would you think that?

            How about the open warfare practiced by the congressional GOPe against Trump right now and promises to do just that?

            I have never seen the GOP fight so hard against anyone. They didn’t even fight this hard against Obama who is one goosestep away from Stalin.

          6. “I’m not focused on the politicians. ”

            WAIT a minute….

            First you try to tell me what you are saying by writing this:

            “You’ll note that Hastert and McConnell never lifted a finger to stop Bush from expanding executive power beyond it’s Constitutional limits.”

            And then you say you aren’t focused on the politicians??????

            More coffee for you I think Leland 😉

          7. I played substitution game to you bringing up politicians. You were too focused on your opinion to catch the basic algebra. Larry has already explained the concept in more detail. Out.

      2. “a businessman used to almost unlimited say in what happens”

        I can’t think of any businessman with unlimited say in what happens in his business. I have worked for extremely big companies (Sanmina, UPS) and very small ones, and in every single place I’ve worked the owner does not get final say. The customer does.

        1. “I can’t think of any businessman with unlimited say in what happens in his business. ”

          Which is precisely why I used the word “almost”

      3. He’ll want more autonomy…not less.

        This is different than other Presidents how? This is different than the other current candidates how?

        The fact is that Presidents set precedents and Obama lowered the bar dramatically, fundamentally transformed as Instapundit would say.

        The fear that Trump will act like Obama is a valid one but only when applied to all potential Presidents, especially Hillary who is openly campaigning on going beyond the lawless actions that Obama has taken.

        1. “This is different than other Presidents how? This is different than the other current candidates how?”

          None.

          But my point was that to fantasize that the power of the executive will be limited under Trump is just that…a fantasy.

  2. Used to be that the MSM used a kind of ritual, an alibi, if you will, to establish their objectivity.

    They would never say, as Lester Holt did this evening, that Mr.. Trump’s speech was filled with “errors and untruths” because he claims Ms. Clinton was asleep during Benghazi and everyone knows she was awake all of that night. They would say “Mr. Trump asserts that Secretary Clinton slept through Benghazi whereas sources close to the Secretary confirm that she was awake and at her post the whole night.”

    But what I want to know is what “gives” with Mr. Trump. Everyone around here knows that Secretary Clinton was awake “at 3 AM” on that fateful night, probably working on the talking points regarding the renegade Egyptian film maker — it was President Obama who went to bed early to get himself in shape for a California fundraiser the next day.

    Sheesh, can’t Donald Trump keep his facts straight?

      1. That’s what I am saying. Secretary Clinton was awake AND gave the stand-down order AND drafted the yarn about the film maker ON her compromised toilet e-mail server.

        She didn’t sleep through any of this — Donald Trump needs to wake up and get his facts straight . . .

          2. Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.

            Like all the other hits against Trump?

            I don’t think there’s a single person in this country that can’t give you some list of Trump’s flaws. That’s not where Trump’s support comes from.

  4. “The only good thing about Trump as a candidate is that he’s not afraid to go after the media’s pet incompetent criminal.”

    That seems the best thing about Trump.
    Then again the media might be already dead- dead man walking.
    Then again Trump kicking the media might resuscitate the corpse
    or simply having Obama leave office might do wonders for failed
    the State News bureau.
    So I would say Obama has poisoned the media
    and Trump is not killing it, but rather he kicks the media [when it’s down].
    It seems Trump is not special, as most Americans would or could say the stuff he says. Though Trump is fearless or perhaps simply lack ability
    see danger and try to avoid it.
    Trump both has a consistency and an unpredictable behavior. He sort reminds me of General Grant [who became President Grant]. I have not heard it said Grant did a good job as the President. And Grant was not admired as general except that he would fight and the other generals avoided the fight. Though he was liked by his troops- some good things were said about his skill in terms being a general- mixed in with a fair amount of crazy/weird stuff- and Grant was a famous drunk. That drinking could help explain his crazy stuff.
    One could say Trump is a drunk who is said not to drink- maybe he is a closet drunk.
    I think Trump could as good of President as President Grant. And a President Grant would better than Hillary Clinton. I don’t have much confidence that Trump could win the Presidency but still believe he can win in landslide.
    And I still think that despite Republican holding the Congress, that the Republican are not winning, but rather, the Dems are losing. Clinton is a loser- but it that doesn’t mean she can’t win the election, but she has the capacity to lose in a big way.
    Of course the public perception is that Trump could lose in a big way.
    I think Trump could quit- thereby lose in big way, but otherwise I don’t see Trump losing the election badly, as most say is possible/likely.
    Trump could appear to be losing, and win. Clinton if she appears to be losing she will lose badly.
    So I can’t predict the general election. But the history of last year, is Trump wins when everyone doesn’t expect it. And Clinton with her superdelegates advantage could not lose. It should noted that these superdelegates are Dems and the Dems are losing. And the Republicans
    similar establishment people who like the superdelegates have not been winning as much as of issue but rather the Dems have been losing.
    So, all the losers are backing a loser, and all the non-winners which in the Republican establishment, are against Trump. Or the non-winners want someone else other than Trump. And I don’t think the non-winning Republican “establishment” could even help Trump win, even if they wanted Trump to win.
    The system is rigged. Dem system is a better rigged system. The Dem rigged system seems like they will succeed getting their loser candidate elected as their nominee. And the Rep rigged system appears to have failed to get their guy as nominee. One of their problems is they couldn’t pick their guy soon enough- and they never did. Whereas Clinton was selected years ago.
    The poorly rigged Republican machine, big problem for them was the Tea Party- the Tea party got more incumbent candidate tossed out of office than the dem machine were able to manage.

    And btw, it seems everyone seems to have forgotten about the Tea Party.
    Probably the poorly rigged Republican machine has been making some effort trying to forget about the Tea Party. And mere shadow of Trump has kinda made the Tea Party disappear. But there is no rational reason for it to disappear, other than fevered desire of the poorly rigged Republican machine. So I would guess that these destructive busy beavers are still plugging away- but in a kind of a stealth mode.

    1. And Clinton with her superdelegates advantage could not lose.

      Makes me wonder how Hillary and the Democrats plan to rig the general election like they did the primary.

      That Democrats know the primary was rigged and still support Hillary is mind boggling.

      1. We do not have a secure voting system. Hopefully a landslide will side step the shenanigans.

        What if Mitt actually did win his election but the dems over did there criminal behavior? “But we were supposed to make it look close!?”, “What difference does it make?”

      2. –Makes me wonder how Hillary and the Democrats plan to rig the general election like they did the primary.–

        For president:
        Dems have New York and California
        California : 55
        New York: 29
        And if Republican lose Texas, 38, the Republicans are slaughtered.
        California and New York are pretty solid in in terms of the dems winning.
        Then got major battleground States of Florida: 29, Pennsylvania, 20, and Ohio, 18
        And Dems pretty certain to get Illinois, 20.
        So, Dem basically start out with 55 + 29 + 20 = 104.
        And those states have a significant portion of US population
        And needs total of 270.
        Republicans should get Texas and southern states with question mark on Florida. These southern states are where Clinton crushed Bernie, but it’s not likely Clinton will win some of them in general- or if she does, it’s landslide. Clinton will campaign in them, but focus most effort in battleground states. Clinton could lose all these southern state and still win, and Republicans have to win them.
        Republican should win Alaska, but dems should win west coast and Hawaii.
        But basically any Dem starts out with the 104 elector votes and it’s like Clinton starting with about 400 superdelegates in the bag.

        I think if one has high voter turn out, this defeats the dem machine- which focuses knowing the electorate and focusing getting the people who would vote Dem to the voting booth- which does not work as well, if everyone shows up.
        What’s might called rigged is dem has strong hold upon public sector unions, teacher unions, and other unions. Other than corruption in general, I can not see why there are public sector unions- and they have socialistic goal, and they not are rigged is sense the Dems support them and their goals. Though the members themselves may or may not so lock step.

        1. I had in mind voting machines where you click republican and it registers democrat. It doesn’t even require coding. They just extend a transparent button over the republican button. If you don’t know what to look for in a code audit you could easily miss it. This doesn’t even require a particularly knowledgeable programmer.

  5. Wow, Brexit by a solid margin. Pundits all wrong, betting markets all wrong, financial markets all wrong. And the polls were split dead even, with _11%_ undecided even at the end.
    In the end, people really find it hard to understand any point of view besides their own.
    And, Trump was there in England quietly supporting Brexit, while all the Democrats from the president and Clinton on down were sternly ordering British citizens to vote Remain.

  6. I have never seen the GOP fight so hard against anyone. They didn’t even fight this hard against Obama who is one goosestep away from Stalin.

    This is how you see people for what they truly are. Most times they can hide who they are, but they can’t hide from their actions.

    It’s like they all have old man syndrome (I just made that up… “yes, I know what you mean and I agree.” Then immediately they act counter to that statement which may even have been sincerely made.)

Comments are closed.