Tuesday, October 25, 2016
"You Can't Respect People Because Most People Aren't Worthy of Respect."
So says the man who proclaims himself the "voice of the people," Donald J. Trump, Republican nominee for president of the United States. The New York Times, no fan of The Donald, has obtained five hours of interviews with Trump conducted in 2014. Part one is now available online at the link above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
five hours of interviews with Trump
Hey - we won't need waterboarding anymore!
As I read the quotes, NPoV, I couldn't get those two words - nuclear codes - out of my mind. This is a guy who (a) admits he doesn't respect people because they're beneath him, and (b) believes that he always emerges a winner no matter how bad the catastrophe he visits on others.
Hillary has brought back the specter of nuclear Armageddon by reviving the Cold War with Russia to weasel neocon votes and drum up business for the military industrial complex. She promised to pour $1T into rebuilding America's nuclear arsenal.
It's terrifying to think about this Iron Lady wannabe getting her claws on the nuclear codes. A preemptive nuclear strike against Iran would be on the table. How far would she go? Let's hope we don't have to find out and Americans choose the 'lesser evil' Nov 8th.
First of all, Anon, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The updating of America's nuclear arsenal was an initiative taken by Barack Obama in conjunction with his defense secretary. Hillary had bugger all to do with it.
Secondly, Hillary does not have "claws." From what I've seen she has hands and fingers.
I don't know if you've ever been screened for service involving nuclear weapons. I have. It's a complex process that includes some pretty exhaustive psychological testing. Trump would never get through that. Not a chance. Hillary, by contrast, probably would.
And, let's recall, when, during the primaries, he met with his foreign and military affairs tutors, Trump remarked "what's the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"
So, Anon, you're not presenting an argument, you're flogging a delusion. I keep telling you there are places your conspiracy fantasies will be warmly welcomed. This isn't one of them. Shop your crap elsewhere.
Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall and $4.00 a week is a lot for non New York residents. That's just my latest pet peeve and applies to Washington Post two.
RWW, I was able to access the article using the "incognito" feature on my browser. Open incognito, plug in the URL, and you should get the article.
Do you believe Nate? 85% probability of Clinton win.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I saw an interesting comment elsewhere that I thought might interest you:
If it is such a shoe-in for Hill ...
then what a great year to vote for Jill.
;-)
Running incognito to fool the gateway count. Cool, I will have to try it.
btw...
I run MS Edge, Chrome and even Firefox. It seems I can usually get past my free count by pasting the link in an alternate browser.
NPoV - Like most of us, I just want the US election over and finished. Then we'll watch the Republicans indulge in their intramural, 3-way bloodletting. The world will continue going down the shitter as inevitable at this point, choice of president notwithstanding. I only hope that war hasn't already been "baked in" to our geopolitics.
"The updating of America's nuclear arsenal was an initiative taken by Barack Obama in conjunction with his defense secretary. Hillary had bugger all to do with it."
Not surprising Obomba has his slimy paws all over it. I bet he gets $20-million in speeches from the military industrial complex alone. Bet he can't wait to start cashing in, soon after he passes the TPP in the lame duck session right after an election where the American people literally voted against the TPP.
But Hillary isn't going to let Obomba get all that MIC cash. She is already horning in claiming the $1T upgrade as her own:
"One of the first things I will do as president is to call for a new nuclear posture review. We have to make sure that America's arsenal is prepared to meet future threats."
Post a Comment