Pelosi Has To Protect Hillary Clinton

Dachshynddawg said:
Why do you hate Trump so much, mate ?

Are you one of those silly, American women who participates in the "Pink Pussy Hat" marches and who screamed at the sky on the anniversary of President Trump's election ? Arrrrrrrh - Arrrrrrh !! Are you afraid that Trump will come and personally "grab your pussy" (and I don't mean the white feline in your profile photo)? I don't think he will - you're not really his preferred type of female. Do you think that the notorious American career criminal , Hillary Clinton, is just an angelic "sweetie pie" who has been falsely accused of a string of serious crimes dating back to the late 1970's by the nasty old Republicans. And do you think Hillary's "Clinton Foundation" was a philanthropic charity and not a devious front for her international money-laundering scams ? Oh, and by the way, why did the Russians make that 145,000,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation ? I guess they're just really nice people who care deeply about the humanitarian work Hillary's Foundation was funding, right ? I mean take Vladimir Putin , for example, he's not really a vicious, murdering, war-mongering, former - KGB bastard, in fact, he a totally harmless, really nice guy ! Wouldn't hurt a fly !

Your claim that Trump never wanted to win the 2016 election and that his campaign was a just a publicity stunt gone "awry", meant to make him a "martyr" so that he could start Trump TV and complain about the election being rigged is (ahem !) a "very interesting" (cough !) conspiracy theory, but you really shouldn't believe everything you read in "MAD" magazine, girlie. You'd do better to get political advice from your pet cat.

BTW,I have access to all of your political news media, but I discovered that the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" appear to have, (metaphorically speaking) "two left testicles" and broadcast fake news on behalf of the (socialist) Democratic Party so I don't listen to/read them any more, mate.

Catch you later, mate !

Dachshund
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think Fox, Infowars, and other right-wing screeds are fairer? They were built to spread right-wing slant. That was the aim and their purpose.
 
Dachshynddawg said:
Well Flanders, as an American, you are always more than welcome to come and live in Australia whenever you like; we have very tight immigration laws, but they do not apply to you guys. Australia has always valued America as a great friend.
Click to expand...

To Dachshynddawg: You are a man of nice judgement.

Dachshynddawg said:
. . . nor does it reflect the devastation that was wrought through the processes of war caused by such diabolically flawed beliefs. The political philosophy of Collectivism brought with it a terrible loss of liberties throughout the 20th century in the Soviet Union, in the Second World War, in Red China under Mao Zedong, in Vietnam, in Pol Pot's Cambodia, in Reagan era Cold War conflicts, in the surreal terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and so on and on.
Click to expand...

To Dachshynddawg: Let me add that Australia has always been this country’s most loyal ally in war and in peace not the UK as the Vietnam War proved. The UK fought with us in Korea because it was a United Nations POLICE ACTION. The UK did not fight with the U.S. in Vietnam because the U.N. did not sanction that war.

p.s. I wonder how Australian Lefties would answer the questions our Democrats dare not answer:


. . . President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the U.N.’s approval. Every choice Truman had remains the same for President Trump with one exception. Trump has to consider the descendants of Vietnam War traitors in Congress are much stronger today than their forefathers were in the 1960s.

I always put these questions to U.N.-loving traitors:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against Communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” I ask them why not? since Korea and Vietnam were fought for the same reason.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-For-The-United-Nations&p=2779843#post2779843
 
Nordberg said:
Are you saying you think Fox, Infowars, and other right-wing screeds are fairer? They were built to spread right-wing slant. That was the aim and their purpose.
Click to expand...


I am saying that I fully realise FOX NEWS, for example, support Trump and the Republican side of US politics, but there's no law against that, and what they report is honest, objective, factual news. I have never seen Hannity or Tucker Carlson and Co. lie or spin/slant the news they report in a misleading, malicious, false or devious way. I have never seen them lie, either directly, or by way of omission. The way, for example, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, "The Washington Post" and "New York Times did when the scandal surrounding House Democrat, Ilhan Omar's extremely dodgy citizenship and marriage certificate documentation broke. The leftist media refused to cover the story AT ALL, and there was only so much that FOX could do to shine a spotlight on the affair. The result was that despite the fact Omar was almost certain guilty of major fraud, no charges were laid; she walked away "scott free" and the story is now forgotten. Likewise, Adam Schiff reading out to the press a doctored version of Trump's telephone transcript from his call to Zelensky on 25th July. Schiff personally embellished that transcript with phrases to make it sound as though Trump was making inappropriate comments; Schiff changed the tone of the transcript. That was outrageous FRAUD, pure and simple, but did any of the leftist news media report it ? NO ! That was left to FOX. The same goes for Joe Biden he himself has admitted he is corrupt, but the Leftist media wont touch the story - and it's a BIG story because Biden is a Presidential candidate. Once again, it was FOX who had to break the news.

The business of FOX is to support Conservative politics/politicians in the US, there's no crime against that unless they decide to start broadcasting lies, bogus disinformation and/or misleading information, and I'm sorry to have to tell you, Nordberg that FOX simply doesn't do that. AS a socialist Democrat you might not like hearing what they have to say, but what they have to say is entirely legit and "Kosher" Moreover, they regularly give time to opposition spokesmen and critics of Trump's policy, etc; which is very fair I think. They invite people like Biden, Schiff and Comey to come on the show and put their side of the story across (they never accept, of course, because they are corrupt criminals who have already more or less convicted themselves).


Dachshund
 
Last edited:
No, grabbing women by the pussy is not locker room talk. I never heard that in any locker room. It would offend plenty of people. I doubt saying that would go without a response I suppose the 20 or so omen who claimed he did it, is unimportant to you. But it reveals who is and it is ugly. You are making justifications for his boorishness and illegal actions like any righty would have to do. It is a loss;.
 
Dachshynddawg said:
Why do you hate Trump so much, mate ?
Click to expand...
Like Pelosi, I don't 'hate' anyone. I simply don't recognize their existence.

Are you one of those silly, American women who participates in the "Pink Pussy Hat" marches and who screamed at the sky on the anniversary of President Trump's election ?
Click to expand...
I'm not a woman. Stick around long enough to acquaint yourself here.


Your claim that Trump never wanted to win the 2016 election and that his campaign was a just a publicity stunt gone "awry", meant to make him a "martyr" so that he could start Trump TV and complain about the election being rigged is (ahem !) a "very interesting" (cough !) conspiracy theory, but you really shouldn't believe everything you read in "MAD" magazine, girlie. You'd do better to get political advice from your pet, white cat.
Click to expand...
Again..you're clueless. If you really did pay attention to anything that goes on here, you would know that trump never wanted to win the election. You really need better sources for your information
 
Nordberg said:
Are you saying you think Fox, Infowars, and other right-wing screeds are fairer? They were built to spread right-wing slant. That was the aim and their purpose.
Click to expand...
Yes. She's saying that she only uses those sources for her information
 
Dachshynddawg said:
Well Flanders, as an American, you are always more than welcome to come and live in Australia whenever you like; we have very tight immigration laws, but they do not apply to you guys. Australia has always valued America as a great friend.


In answer to your question, Australia today is very politically Conservative. We have a Conservative administration in power as I speak. Most Australians today do not like the nature of
modern (neo-Marxist/socialist) left-wing politics. Earlier this year the Australian Labor Party went into a Federal election on a set of high-taxing, pro-immigration, big Welfare spending, Identity politics , socialist policies and were soundly thrashed by our Liberal Party which is pretty much the political equivalent of your Republican party.


I have to say I am very worried by the lurch to the extreme, socialist/postmodernist left your Democratic party's base has taken. I watched the most recent Democrat 2020 Presidential debate in the US and what I heard from people like Elizabeth Warren, "Mayor Pete", Bernie Sanders and co was pure, loony-left madness. I was shocked and I wondered how socialism/neo-Marxism/Postmodern political ideology could have infected your Democratic party to the extent that it has? I blame Obama for a lot of it, he was a Marxist for many years, beginning at a young age. He attended Occidental college in California and was well-known there as a revolutionary Marxist communist; later, he became heavily involved in a number of socialist organizations (like the DSA) and attended lectures on radical communitarian/collectivist agitation. He was mixed up with hard-core socialist groups in Chicago when his career in politics began. Much of the shift to the far left in the Democratic party is, I think, a legacy of his 8 years in office.


Thanks for the video clip of Howard Roark's court room speech in "The Fountainhead", I had not seen it before. I have read the novel though, and I've just checked the year in which Ayn Rand wrote it, which was 1943; quite a long time ago ! Roark is railing eloquently against Collectivism of course, and Ayn Rand personally defined "collectivism" as...


"...the subjugation of the individual to the group - whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."


I think the dangers of collectivism remain just as real today as they were for Ayn Rand in 1943. But the modern-era's political Left in America - the Democrats - (who have now largely become a socialist/collectivist party) seem to have never learned about the dangers of collectivism. They appear to be blithely unaware or totally unconcerned about the disasters created by collectivism during the past century. Without an enumeration, there are, just within the 20th century, 120,000,000 "disasters."That's the number of people killed in that century, by the ambitions of totalitarian, collectivist/socialist regimes, and this astounding figure does not reflect the tremendous poverty associated with those ambitions, nor does it reflect the devastation that was wrought through the processes of war caused by such diabolically flawed beliefs. The political philosophy of Collectivism brought with it a terrible loss of liberties throughout the 20th century in the Soviet Union, in the Second World War, in Red China under Mao Zedong, in Vietnam, in Pol Pot's Cambodia, in Reagan era Cold War conflicts, in the surreal terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and so on and on. More recently America has had it battle collectivism under the socialist Obama administration in the form of macroeconomic controls, Welfarism, regulatory obstructions, identity politics, the politically correct suppression of free speech and lifestyle paternalism.


You mention Democrat "parasites", I agree; and this highlights another one of the main problems with socialist collectivism, namely "free-riding". This is the problem that parasites in a society can benefit from group effort even if they are not involved in the effort itself. There is also the example of syndicalism here: i.e; when a trade union in an industry protests against a law, either, it loses and everybody loses, or it wins and everyone wins, even workers outside the trade union. Moreover the free-rider problem is getting bigger as groups get larger. Another problem with collectivism is "latency", in which, for the same reason, collectivism might lead to a latent group where everyone waits for someone to act in the first place.


Finally it is worth remembering that there is no country in the world where socialism has EVER come through peaceful means. It worries me (a lot !) that your Democrat Party in the US is now effectively a ratbag, socialist Party. I think if they remain that way and if they ever become a serious threat to win office, there could be another Civil War in America, or at the very least a national outbreak of war-like violence. I would hate to see that happen as I love America, but I am extremely concerned.


Regards


Dachshund
Click to expand...

You buy the labels without understanding them. the happiest nations in the world are theses so-called socialist ones. But they have corporations and businesses. The people go to work every day, just like we do. The difference is they turn their taxes toward helping the people instead of the plutocrats. They have plenty of very wealthy people. But they have universal healthcare and support programs for the weak of unlucky. (I do not see that as a threat.
 
Nordberg said:
You buy the labels without understanding them. the happiest nations in the world are theses so-called socialist ones. But they have corporations and businesses. The people go to work every day, just like we do. The difference is they turn their taxes toward helping the people instead of the plutocrats. They have plenty of very wealthy people. But they have universal healthcare and support programs for the weak of unlucky. (I do not see that as a threat.
Click to expand...

Give me ONE, just ONE example of the happy socialist nations you are referring to. And PLEASE don't cite a Scandinavian country like Sweden, because then I would have to go through the tedious process of explain why socialism in Sweden was a failed experiment that was only ever attempted because it could rely on the revenue that was accrued from its capitalist economy in previous decades. America, BTW, has a Welfare state to support the weak and lucky. I agree that there is an unacceptable disparty of wealth distribution in the US that has formed a plutocracy. That is a consequence of neo-liberalism having been the dominant political/economic ideology in the US for the past four decades, and especially over the past 20 years. I an not a advocate of neo-liberalism. I am, like I told you, a traditional social Conservative - my hero is Edmund Burke. Got it ? I am on the right wing of politics, sure, but I am not on the extreme right wing where neo-liberalism (market fundamentalism) is located. So, I agree with you about the 1% - that a bad state of affairs. But your Democrats base are now pushing hard-core socialist policy and socialism is even more toxic and lethal than neo-liberalism. History proves that.

Dachshund

Dachund
 
NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat came a whisker away from becoming the first Imperial President, while Pelosi is the first Imperial Speaker of the House.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Freakazoid-Is-The-Worst&p=3400217#post3400217

Flanders said:
The imperial speaker of the house decided that dictating which witnesses the Senate can call is her best course of action.
Click to expand...

Maybe Ken Starr saying it to a few million television viewers will resonate with voters? Move the cursor to 2:35 and to 11:00 near the end of the clip:


 
Dachshynddawg said:
Give me ONE, just ONE example of the happy socialist nations you are referring to. And PLEASE don't cite a Scandinavian country like Sweden, because then I would have to go through the tedious process of explain why socialism in Sweden was a failed experiment that was only ever attempted because it could rely on the revenue that was accrued from its capitalist economy in previous decades. America, BTW, has a Welfare state to support the weak and lucky. I agree that there is an unacceptable disparty of wealth distribution in the US that has formed a plutocracy. That is a consequence of neo-liberalism having been the dominant political/economic ideology in the US for the past four decades, and especially over the past 20 years. I an not a advocate of neo-liberalism. I am, like I told you, a traditional social Conservative - my hero is Edmund Burke. Got it ? I am on the right wing of politics, sure, but I am not on the extreme right wing where neo-liberalism (market fundamentalism) is located. So, I agree with you about the 1% - that a bad state of affairs. But your Democrats base are now pushing hard-core socialist policy and socialism is even more toxic and lethal than neo-liberalism. History proves that.

Dachshund

Dachund
Click to expand...

There are no socialist countries. How can I discuss one? They are all capitalists who just distribute wealth more fairly. Ever hear of Ikea? How about ABB robotics? How about Nokia? They are corporations with workers just like ours.
 
Nordberg said:
There are no socialist countries. How can I discuss one? They are all capitalists who just distribute wealth more fairly. Ever hear of Ikea? How about ABB robotics? How about Nokia? They are corporations with workers just like ours.
Click to expand...

so you want radical change to a system just like ours?
 
AssHatZombie said:
so you want radical change to a system just like ours?
Click to expand...

Try again, but make sense this time. I want the wealth distribution to be flattened out . America's wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age. The wealthy and corporations own the politicians and work them into more and more laws that favor them. No huge new laws, but slowly and gradually making it all favor them. The wealth gap is not only cruel and selfish but dangerous to the country.
Our system has been radically changed but by those on top.
 
Nordberg said:
Try again, but make sense this time. I want the wealth distribution to be flattened out . America's wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age. The wealthy and corporations own the politicians and work them into more and more laws that favor them. No huge new laws, but slowly and gradually making it all favor them. The wealth gap is not only cruel and selfish but dangerous to the country.
Our system has been radically changed but by those on top.
Click to expand...

yes. and globalist policy is the triumph of large corporations over the national sovereignty required to sculpt trade into something more sustainable for all levels of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top