Of the many character traits I would ascribe to Hillary, loyalty would not be among them.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Of the many character traits I would ascribe to Hillary, loyalty would not be among them.
Proven? Yes.
Convicted? Never.
Old
Hillary ClintonPhoto: Reuters
Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.
The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
In an April 2009 message to Abedin and Mills, Doug Band, who was overseeing the Clinton Foundation at the time, urgently asked for a meeting between a top US official and Gilbert Chagoury — a major donor to the Clinton family charity.
“We need to speak to the substance person re Lebanon. As you know, he’s [Chagoury] key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon,” wrote Band, in a clear attempt to suck up to a big donor to the foundation.
“Its jeff feltman,” Abedin wrote back, referring to America’s former ambassador to Lebanon who went on to become assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in August 2009.
“I’m sure he knows him. Ill talk to jeff,” said Abedin.
Less than 20 minutes later, Band replied, “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important. He’s awake I’m sure.”
Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who gave the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million. In 2009, he also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The construction magnate, a close pal of Bill Clinton’s, has financial interests around the world. He was convicted in Switzerland in 2000 of money laundering and paid a $66 million fine in a plea deal.
Abedin’s quick response to Band paid dividends down the road.
In June 2011, Band formed the Teneo consulting firm, with Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman. And in 2012, Abedin won permission to work as a $15,000-a-month consultant for Teneo in a special arrangement that allowed her to remain on the State Department payroll.
The disclosures came in a batch of 296 pages of State Department documents released by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that has been fighting in court to recover Clinton’s emails through the Freedom of Information Act.
In an April 2009 exchange, Band — who also worked for years as Bill Clinton’s close aide or “body man” — forwarded an email from an unidentified person to Abedin, Mills and a third aide, Nora Toiv, about a job.
SEE ALSO
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/new-emails-show-huma-scheming-for-hillary/
New emails show Huma scheming for Hillary
The person had sent an email to Band that had the subject line: “A favor.”
“Important to take care of [redacted],” Band wrote when he passed it along.
“We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.
It wasn’t the first time Team Clinton used its clout to land a position for a donor to the foundation. In emails obtained in June by Citizens United, another watchdog group, it was revealed that a Chicago securities trader who was a Clinton bundler and gave at least $1 million to the foundation landed on the International Security Advisory Board despite having no experience in the field.
The donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, got the gig in 2011 after Mills intervened, according to an email.
The board provides advice to the State Department on all arms control, and its members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic and political backgrounds, according to its website.
After ABC News reported Fernando’s role, he resigned within 24 hours.
The 44 previously unreleased emails in the new documents will raise more questions about conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the secretary of state and her aides and whether donors could “pay to play” and profit from their donations.
The revelations drew a quick rebuke from Donald Trump’s campaign, which said: “This is yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, character, stability and temperament to be within 1,000 miles of public power. She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment.”
“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”
The documents further showed that before a Clinton trip to Asia in 2009, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, sent Hillary Clinton a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress.
The document said he planned to condemn any US efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers — another example of her close ties to Wall Street.
In an embarrassing disclosure, Abedin — Clinton’s closest aide — admitted she left her boss’ daily schedule in an unlocked hotel room in Trinidad and Tobago, where the secretary of state was attending a conference.
“Hi Huma,” aide Melissa Lan wrote Abedin. “Would it be possible to get one of the Secretary’s day book binders back for tomorrow’s product?”
Abedin replied, “Yes its on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in lobby. Thx.”
Before taking office, Clinton wrote in a letter to State Department designated agency ethics official James Thessin that, if confirmed, she would not participate in any matters that involved people who had connections to the family’s charities.
Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said that “neither of these emails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation’s work.”
“They are communications between her aides and the president’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the foundation,”
P.s.Proven? Yes.
Convicted? Never.
Old
Hillary ClintonPhoto: Reuters
Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.
The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
In an April 2009 message to Abedin and Mills, Doug Band, who was overseeing the Clinton Foundation at the time, urgently asked for a meeting between a top US official and Gilbert Chagoury — a major donor to the Clinton family charity.
“We need to speak to the substance person re Lebanon. As you know, he’s [Chagoury] key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon,” wrote Band, in a clear attempt to suck up to a big donor to the foundation.
“Its jeff feltman,” Abedin wrote back, referring to America’s former ambassador to Lebanon who went on to become assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in August 2009.
“I’m sure he knows him. Ill talk to jeff,” said Abedin.
Less than 20 minutes later, Band replied, “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important. He’s awake I’m sure.”
Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who gave the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million. In 2009, he also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The construction magnate, a close pal of Bill Clinton’s, has financial interests around the world. He was convicted in Switzerland in 2000 of money laundering and paid a $66 million fine in a plea deal.
Abedin’s quick response to Band paid dividends down the road.
In June 2011, Band formed the Teneo consulting firm, with Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman. And in 2012, Abedin won permission to work as a $15,000-a-month consultant for Teneo in a special arrangement that allowed her to remain on the State Department payroll.
The disclosures came in a batch of 296 pages of State Department documents released by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that has been fighting in court to recover Clinton’s emails through the Freedom of Information Act.
In an April 2009 exchange, Band — who also worked for years as Bill Clinton’s close aide or “body man” — forwarded an email from an unidentified person to Abedin, Mills and a third aide, Nora Toiv, about a job.
SEE ALSO
New emails show Huma scheming for Hillary
The person had sent an email to Band that had the subject line: “A favor.”
“Important to take care of [redacted],” Band wrote when he passed it along.
“We all have had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.
It wasn’t the first time Team Clinton used its clout to land a position for a donor to the foundation. In emails obtained in June by Citizens United, another watchdog group, it was revealed that a Chicago securities trader who was a Clinton bundler and gave at least $1 million to the foundation landed on the International Security Advisory Board despite having no experience in the field.
The donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, got the gig in 2011 after Mills intervened, according to an email.
The board provides advice to the State Department on all arms control, and its members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic and political backgrounds, according to its website.
After ABC News reported Fernando’s role, he resigned within 24 hours.
The 44 previously unreleased emails in the new documents will raise more questions about conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the secretary of state and her aides and whether donors could “pay to play” and profit from their donations.
The revelations drew a quick rebuke from Donald Trump’s campaign, which said: “This is yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, character, stability and temperament to be within 1,000 miles of public power. She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment.”
“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”
The documents further showed that before a Clinton trip to Asia in 2009, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, sent Hillary Clinton a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress.
The document said he planned to condemn any US efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers — another example of her close ties to Wall Street.
In an embarrassing disclosure, Abedin — Clinton’s closest aide — admitted she left her boss’ daily schedule in an unlocked hotel room in Trinidad and Tobago, where the secretary of state was attending a conference.
“Hi Huma,” aide Melissa Lan wrote Abedin. “Would it be possible to get one of the Secretary’s day book binders back for tomorrow’s product?”
Abedin replied, “Yes its on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in lobby. Thx.”
Before taking office, Clinton wrote in a letter to State Department designated agency ethics official James Thessin that, if confirmed, she would not participate in any matters that involved people who had connections to the family’s charities.
Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said that “neither of these emails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation’s work.”
“They are communications between her aides and the president’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the foundation,”
I could go on all day with evidence if I had the time. And this is the NY post which is a left wing hack paper.
Neither would I ascribe it to Trump. The minute Russia does something to piss him off I see him just as likely to start WWIII. We know he can't control his mouth let alone his actions.
Hence why I have a pipe dream of seeing money and donations (bribery) removed from politics lol. I def don't agree with selling governmental positions for money. That's flat out wrong. It happens all the time in Washington unfortunately.
It also seems like Hillary isn't alone in this, or at the very least, Trump is only one step behind her:
"Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
t
✉
⎕
57
Donald Trump Says He Can Buy Politicians, None of His Rivals Disagree
Lee Fang
Aug. 7 2015, 11:15 a.m.
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Donald Trump bragged Thursday night that he could buy politicians — even the ones sharing the stage with him at a Republican presidential debate.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
The only complaints came from two candidates who yelled that they had received no Trump money. As Trump continued to talk, he was interrupted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., complaining that Trump instead gave campaign contributions to Rubio’s Democratic opponent.
“I hope you will give to me,” said Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.
“Sounds good. Sounds good to me, governor,” said Trump.
Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”"
It's funny how he admits it's a broken system but perpetuates that broken system to his own benefit like Hillary is doing.
Ukraine’s ‘October Surprise’
– may be coming in September
by Justin Raimondo, August 12, 2016
When a Russian FSB agent and a Russian soldier were killed by a team of Ukrainian saboteurs, and one of the captured Ukrainians was shown on Russian media in handcuffs, US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt tweeted
“US government has seen nothing so far that corroborates Russians allegations of a ‘Crimea incursion’ & Ukraine has strongly refuted them.”
Apparently two dead Russians don’t count for much in Pyatt’s book: perhaps Putin personally killed them, and the whole thing is a set up.
And how has Ukraine “strongly refuted” this accusation? According to the Ukrainian authorities, the captured would-be saboteur, one Yevgeny Panov, was “kidnapped” from his home town in Zaporizhia – a distance of some 200 miles – by the Russians and transported to Crimea. The Ukrainian police have solemnly announced that "We are taking all necessary measures to promptly, fully and impartially investigate all circumstances of this crime.” One has to admire the ability of the Ukrainian authorities to utter the most portentous absurdities with the perfect aplomb of a used car dealer, but of course their skills don’t even begin to approach Pyatt’s. The ambassador followed up his tweet with another that stated:
“Russia has a record of frequently levying false accusations at Ukraine to deflect attention from its own illegal actions.”
Speaking of deflection, the lobbying group for NATO, the Atlantic Council, has a long account of the incident here, notable for its obscurantism. However, after going on about various confusing “narratives” – including speculation that the saboteurs may be Russian deserters, or even that they “may not exist at all” – the pretense of objectivity forces the Atlanticists to admit, after several paragraphs of blowing smoke, that, yes,
“Because of the arrest of Panov, it has become clear that the Armyansk incident was not invented by the FSB, as many have claimed online, though details provided are difficult to verify.”
Well, that’s progress, at any rate: acknowledging reality. And of course the details are difficult to verify, since Western “news” accounts are heavily colored, like this NPR piece which doesn’t mention that the Russians captured several of the saboteurs, and doesn’t mention Panov, but wonders why the Russians “waited three days” to report the incident. This Bloomberg account has not one detail about the incident: instead, we are treated to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s denials that anything at all took place, “analysis” by an “expert” that “no one trusts” anybody else, calculations on the sinking of the Ukrainian currency, and warnings about how Putin supposedly has a habit of launching military operations in the midst of the Olympic games. This Associated Press dispatch, published in the New York Times, is similarly bereft of details, and gets the number of Russian casualties wrong: they claim only one Russian died. The rest is “analysis” by various “experts,” claiming that the whole thing is a diversion – oddly, the same line peddled by Ambassador Pyatt – to which are added the author’s own description of Putin’s reaction as “menacing.” The BBC helpfully adds that, while Panov may have been a “volunteer” fighter, he was “more recently” associated with “a charitable organization.”
Since when do members of “charitable” organizations wear camouflage while sneaking over heavily-guarded borders in the dead of night?
So there’s an effective embargo on reliable news from this dark corner of the battlefield between East and West. Yet it’s possible, if we glean facts from disparate sources, to outline how the incident unfolded. CNN, after shilly-shallying for four or five paragraphs – reporting Poroshenko’s denials and Ukrainian military measures to counteract a long-touted and entirely mythical Russian “invasion” – finally coughs up some facts, citing http://tass.ru/en/world/893840:
“The report said Russian forces spotted the ‘saboteurs’ and while attempting to detain them, found ‘20 improvised explosive devices containing more than 40 kilograms of TNT equivalent, ammunition, fuses, antipersonnel and magnetic bombs, grenades and the Ukrainian armed forces’ standard special weapons.’ It said two Russian servicemen were killed in ensuing clashes.”
According to the Russian daily Kommersant, the Ukrainian incursion occurred on August 7, when Russian intelligence detected the entry of a group of seven armed men in an inflatable boat who passed through the Gulf of Perekop from Ukraine, entering Crimean territory near the town of Armyansk. The men were wearing “Soviet-style” camouflage uniforms, apparently trying to give the impression that they were Russian troops. They were intercepted and a shootout followed, in which several on both sides were wounded and one Russian FSB agent was killed. A second confrontation occurred when, the next day, Russian forces identified one of the saboteurs and followed him into an ambush: Ukrainian military positioned on the border opened fire and a second group crossed the border as the FSB personnel pursued their quarry. One Russian soldier was killed in the ensuing exchange.
At least two of the infiltrators were killed, and of those in the first group five were captured: a total of ten people have been detained, including Panov. Some had Russian passports and the majority are residents of Crimea. Kommersant also said those captured admitted they were engaged in sabotage, acting under orders from Ukrainian intelligence; their objective was to plant bombs at tourist sites and incite panic, effectively destroying Crimea’s lucrative tourist industry, although they denied wanting to kill anyone.
Oh, of course not!
Tass is http://tass.ru/en/world/893863 that Panov has not only confessed that the operation was carried out under the direction of the Ukrainian secret service, but he has identified some of them by name. His taped statement was broadcast over the Rossiya’24 news channel.
Now we have Newsweek “reporting” the preposterous Ukrainian “spin” on this botched incursion: it was really a “shootout involving Russian federal security agents (FSB) and Russian armed forces on the Crimean regional border”! Yes, the Russians were shooting at themselves. Ukrainian propaganda usually borders on the fantastic, but this marks a new level of crudity even for them.
So why should we care about this showdown at the Ukrainian corral, anyway?
It’s important because the Ukrainians – like the rest of the world – have been watching the US presidential campaign, and they don’t like what they see. Donald Trump, while disdaining to get involved in Ukraine’s feud with the Kremlin, is asking “Wouldn’t it be good if we could get along with Russia?” This has provoked the Ukrainians into paroxysms of spittle-flecked hysteria. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is openly accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent: former CIA chief Mike Morrell, in the process of endorsing her, said Trump is an “unwitting agent” of the FSB. And the “mainstream” media, which is brazenly campaigning on Clinton’s behalf, has been playing the Trump-is-a-Russian-stooge card for all it’s worth.
In short, the leaders of Ukraine hate Trump, have continually denounced him, and are openly rooting for a Clinton victory in November: by launching a terrorist attack on Crimea, and before that http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5e82a17e29be45e1b1be39759550afd7/separatist-ukrainian-leader-wounded-luhansk-car-bombing (trying to assassinate) the President of the rebellious Luhansk Republic in eastern Ukraine – they put a bomb under his car, seriously injuring him – they hope to provoke Putin into taking military action. And voila!, we have an “October surprise” – with Hillary taking a hard-line anti-Russian stance, and Trump put in the position of seeming to defend Russian “aggression.”
It’s a perfect set up, for both the Ukrainians – who have been chafing at President Obama’s refusal to provide them with deadly arms – and for Hillary, whose McCarthyite campaign against Trump has taken on all the trappings of a cold war fear-fest of the sort we haven’t seen since the 1950s.
This is the price we pay as a global empire, with our noses stuck in the internal affairs of practically every nation on earth: our clients continually plot and scheme to insert themselves into our internal affairs, including our elections. Intervention is a two-way street.
Russia has lost two servicemen: Putin isn’t going to let this go. And neither are the Ukrainian coup leaders, who came to power by overthrowing the elected President and have a very tenuous hold on power. They need perpetual war scares to keep the populace diverted from their pathetic economic plight and the growing repression exercised by the regime. And certainly Hillary Clinton is ready, willing, and able to use a looming Ukrainian “crisis” to claw her way to the White House – even if she has to risk a nuclear showdown with the Russians. After all, what’s the mere prospect of World War III compared to the supreme importance of installing the First Woman President in the Oval Office?
As much as I dislike trump, I disagree. He has been stumping his nationalist "America First" ideas for decades. The details may have changed, but not the basic idea. Absolutely everything being used as a point of contention with Russia by the neocons, the media, and the pro-war administration has absolutely nothing to do with American interests from a nationalist perspective.
Clinton spokesman: Gowdy 'just as bad'
I don't think we disagree much. Just which things we find more appalling, lol.
I forgot to ask, are we at least in agreement at this point Hillary's illegally deleted emails might have some significance to a criminal investigation? You know, for finding that proof all the existing mountains of evidence are apparently so lacking in that the Justice Dept. forced the FBI to cancel its investigation.
TRUMP SAYS HE WOULD ONLY USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A SARCASTIC WAY
Trump Says He Would Only Use Nuclear Weapons in a Sarcastic Way - The New Yorker
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Clarifying his position on a key national-security issue, Donald Trump said on Friday that as President he would be willing to use nuclear weapons “but only in a sarcastic way.”
“People who are worried about me having the nuclear launch codes should stop worrying, O.K.?” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “If I ever used nuclear weapons it would be really obvious that I was just being sarcastic.”
Pressed by Blitzer to explain the difference between a sarcastic and non-sarcastic nuclear attack, Trump responded, “You’d use the weapons and everything, but then you’d say, ‘Just kidding.’”
Trump did not specify which nations he would target for a sarcastic nuclear attack. “I can’t say right now,” he said. “But there are a lot of countries that need to lighten up.”
Trump Says He Would Only Use Nuclear Weapons in a Sarcastic Way - The New Yorker
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Clarifying his position on a key national-security issue, Donald Trump said on Friday that as President he would be willing to use nuclear weapons “but only in a sarcastic way.”
“People who are worried about me having the nuclear launch codes should stop worrying, O.K.?” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “If I ever used nuclear weapons it would be really obvious that I was just being sarcastic.”
Pressed by Blitzer to explain the difference between a sarcastic and non-sarcastic nuclear attack, Trump responded, “You’d use the weapons and everything, but then you’d say, ‘Just kidding.’”
Trump did not specify which nations he would target for a sarcastic nuclear attack. “I can’t say right now,” he said. “But there are a lot of countries that need to lighten up.”
"America first" really means Trump first.....
I think we agree on the big picture and differ on the nuances and who's worse, yes.
Yes, if she's selling political seats for money a criminal investigation is warranted but that would also mean 100% of Washington should be under criminal investigation also lol.
I do think a criminal investigation could be warranted for Trump as well based on the other things I spoke about.
Yes, this is a man id want as president!
I'm going to launch nukes on your country......juiuuuuuuust kidding
The Trump we saw: Populist, frustrating, naive, wise, forever on the make [IOW: Con]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-trump-we-saw-populist-frustrating-naive-wise-forever-on-the-make/2016/08/11/35efe458-58ee-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html (The Trump we saw: Populist, frustrating, naive, wise, forever on the make)
Throughout the interviews, he was alternately enthusiastic (“Let’s keep going — this is a lot of fun,” he said during one of our sessions, rebuffing his secretary’s effort to bring the meeting to a close) and sternly skeptical, repeatedly telling us about the “lowlife reporters” who had written books about him through the decades and about the https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/ (legal actions he had contemplated or taken against those authors).
Both aspects of Trump seemed to be the stuff of fiction, of characters who were written to capture the hopes and ambitions of a great, young nation, but also its fears, doubts and jealousies. Even after all those hours of interviews, Trump seemed not quite real, a character he had built to enhance his business empire, a construct designed to be at once an everyman and an impossibly high-flying king of Manhattan, an avatar of American riches.
Trump was charming, yet forever on the make, like Lonesome Rhodes from “A Face in the Crowd,” a 1957 movie starring Andy Griffith as a folksy, but ultimately cynical Arkansas traveler who soars from a filthy jail cell to the pinnacle of American celebrity and political power. Trump was a natural-born populist, like Howard Beale, the TV anchorman from “Network,” a 1976 film in which the newsman rallies the nation to open their windows and shout, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Trump was at times naive yet wise, like Chauncey Gardiner, a dim gardener whose unwitting folk wisdom turned him into a possible presidential contender in “Being There” (1979).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-trump-we-saw-populist-frustrating-naive-wise-forever-on-the-make/2016/08/11/35efe458-58ee-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html (The Trump we saw: Populist, frustrating, naive, wise, forever on the make)
Throughout the interviews, he was alternately enthusiastic (“Let’s keep going — this is a lot of fun,” he said during one of our sessions, rebuffing his secretary’s effort to bring the meeting to a close) and sternly skeptical, repeatedly telling us about the “lowlife reporters” who had written books about him through the decades and about the https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/ (legal actions he had contemplated or taken against those authors).
Both aspects of Trump seemed to be the stuff of fiction, of characters who were written to capture the hopes and ambitions of a great, young nation, but also its fears, doubts and jealousies. Even after all those hours of interviews, Trump seemed not quite real, a character he had built to enhance his business empire, a construct designed to be at once an everyman and an impossibly high-flying king of Manhattan, an avatar of American riches.
Trump was charming, yet forever on the make, like Lonesome Rhodes from “A Face in the Crowd,” a 1957 movie starring Andy Griffith as a folksy, but ultimately cynical Arkansas traveler who soars from a filthy jail cell to the pinnacle of American celebrity and political power. Trump was a natural-born populist, like Howard Beale, the TV anchorman from “Network,” a 1976 film in which the newsman rallies the nation to open their windows and shout, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Trump was at times naive yet wise, like Chauncey Gardiner, a dim gardener whose unwitting folk wisdom turned him into a possible presidential contender in “Being There” (1979).
As his poll numbers sink, his crowds get angrier and Trump gets stranger.
An Even Stranger Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/opinion/an-even-stranger-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share
…
When Mr. Trump fans racist rage against the president, suggests that gun owners take up arms against Mrs. Clinton, or speaks darkly of a “rigged” election, he is not trying to woo Republican skeptics, independents or undecided voters. He is appealing to the mob.
Right now Mr. Trump is losing, and this very likely terrifies him. Maybe he doesn’t know how to control himself, or comprehend why he should. Or he is simply satisfying his boundless need for attention. But his behavior this week raises a more disturbing scenario. Perhaps he has given up on winning through civil means and does not care about the consequences of his campaign of incitement.
An Even Stranger Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/opinion/an-even-stranger-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share
…
When Mr. Trump fans racist rage against the president, suggests that gun owners take up arms against Mrs. Clinton, or speaks darkly of a “rigged” election, he is not trying to woo Republican skeptics, independents or undecided voters. He is appealing to the mob.
Right now Mr. Trump is losing, and this very likely terrifies him. Maybe he doesn’t know how to control himself, or comprehend why he should. Or he is simply satisfying his boundless need for attention. But his behavior this week raises a more disturbing scenario. Perhaps he has given up on winning through civil means and does not care about the consequences of his campaign of incitement.
Former Trump supporters of reddit, what was the final straw for you?
Former Trump supporters of reddit, what was the final straw for you?
Former Trump supporters of reddit, what was the final straw for you?
Trump on Iraq War (2007)
