A reader asks,
“Earlier you admonished yourself for using unattractive photos of Hillary Clinton to illustrate various posts and in the blog wallpaper, and pledged to stop the practice, Now you have a serene photo of Mrs. Clinton, but a shot of Trump that looks like he’s in the middle of uttering an obscenity. Isn’t this a double standard?”
Answer: Nope. Not in my view. At this point, that photo fairly and accurately portrays Trump’s conduct in the campaign, which is ugly, assaultive, and a direct reflection on his character. Hillary Clinton’s public demeanor has always been dignified and appropriate for a Presidential candidate, so photographs that captured her in millisecond-long poses with her eyes crossed or looking demonic were both unkind and misleading. The photo you refer to is an accurate depiction of Trump’s demeanor and temperament, especially of late. That is Donald Trump.
Ethics Alarms 
Maybe you could use this one…
“has always been dignified…” Except that whole cackling like a senile Cruella Deville, lying like a rug, and interfering with an active criminal investigation thing.
Do you not know what “demeanor” is, or did you leave that word out on purpose? Only your first complaint has anything to do with public demeanor, and she rarely “cackles.”
“has always been dignified…”
“Except that whole cackling […] thing.”
“she rarely “cackles.””
So…. He’s right?
I’d go one step further. Hillary has a very expressive face, and so it isn’t hard… it’s not even remotely inconvenient, to find instances of her looking undignified, and I can’t help but think that anyone saying otherwise is either being dishonest, or has a very short memory.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
“Like…. With a rag, or something?”
“Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughs].”
“Basket of Deplorables”
“vast, right wing conspiracy.” (And I’ll let you pick which time.)
Basically the entirety of this:
“You fucking Jew bastard” (Google that one.)
“bimbo eruptions”
“I remember landing under sniper fire.”
I forgot the Whip and the Nae Nae! How did I do this?
“You fucking Jew bastard” (Google that one.)
“bimbo eruptions”
I was waiting for someone to demonstrate that they have no idea what the difference is between “public demeanor” and “unproven allegations of awful private behavior”–because that always happens in discussions of the Clintons–but I’m disappointed to see it come from you.
None of the public statements you mentioned qualify as “undignified,” either–some are dishonest, but that’s not the same thing. Some are right on the money. Lots of Trump supporters are deplorable, as Jack wrote at the time.
“bimbo eruptions”
“unproven allegations of awful private behavior”
Oops? And let’s be real clear…. If you aren’t willing to accept “You fucking Jew bastard”, which no fewer than three ear witnesses have corroborated, as reported in the Guardian… Then how the hell do you justify a belief in any of the (as of yet) unproven and uncorroborated allegations against Trump?
As for the rest of it. Ugh.
“None of the public statements you mentioned qualify as “undignified,” either–some are dishonest, but that’s not the same thing.”
Dishonesty is not necessarily beneath the dignity of the President of The United States. You heard it here first. But I’d argue that at the very least a callous disregard for the situation regarding a dead diplomat, sarcasm in the face of a special select hearing, laughing at the memory of a rape case (note: Not defending the rapist, that was necessary, laughing about it was not.), dividing the country along partisan lines, and racial and sexual slurs ARE beneath the dignity of the president.
“Some are right on the money. Lots of Trump supporters are deplorable, as Jack wrote at the time.”
Right, but if I called a whore a cumdumpster, I wouldn’t be wrong, but it’s still not a very dignified thing to say. It’s the president’s job to unite the country, and I can’t think of the last politician who took that job seriously. It’s gotten to the point where I think we’ve forgotten to expect it. Calling a quarter of America ‘irredeemable’ may or may not be true, but she had a duty not to say it. What with all the other true things she’s chosen not to say, you’d think not saying a true thing would come naturally to her…. But no, this was an opportunity to tell a divisive truth. So fire at will, right? It wasn’t even an oddity, anyone else remember when she included the NRA, Iran and “Republicans” in a list of enemies she’s made?
You are so partisan it hurts, Chris. America has a choice between a sack of shit and a pile of shit, and no one should be happy with it. Anyone who says “I will hold my nose and vote X, because I think Y is worse” is doing their civic duty, anyone who actively supports either candidate on their merits is an idiot. See that? True, and undignified. Maybe I should be president.
#JeffforPrez
Right, but if I called a whore a cumdumpster, I wouldn’t be wrong, but it’s still not a very dignified thing to say.
Yes, that’s entirely the same.
It was meant to illustrate the absurdity of the assertion that True things are Dignified by definition. You ass. And having responded to nothing else, I assume you concede that actual points I made?
Oops? And let’s be real clear…. If you aren’t willing to accept “You fucking Jew bastard”, which no fewer than three ear witnesses have corroborated, as reported in the Guardian… Then how the hell do you justify a belief in any of the (as of yet) unproven and uncorroborated allegations against Trump?
I don’t have to justify my belief in the accusations against Trump, because I hold no such belief, and if I did, I wouldn’t present it as fact the way you just did. I think the accusations against Trump are probably true, given his other behavior towards women, but I don’t know if they’re true. I haven’t seen any behavior from Clinton indicating she’d call someone a “Jew bastard,” so I’m more skeptical of that then the claim that Trump sexually assaults women.
That’s not partisanship, that’s reason.
But I’d argue that at the very least a callous disregard for the situation regarding a dead diplomat,
She wasn’t showing callous disregard for the situation. The full context of “What difference does it make” makes that clear.
“laughing at the memory of a rape case (note: Not defending the rapist, that was necessary, laughing about it was not.),”
It was a bitter laugh over the fact that she didn’t trust lie detector tests. This has been used to paint her as a soulless monster who laughs at rape victims. I’m underwhelmed.
“dividing the country along partisan lines,”
What, with “deplorables?” That’s not “dividing the country along partisan lines.” She was referring to actual Nazis. She was wrong to say half of Trump supporters met this criteria, which she later clarified.
“and racial and sexual slurs ARE beneath the dignity of the president.”
Agreed, but see above, re: unproven. Jack was talking about PUBLIC demeanor. Your response did not address his point.
I swear you are TGT-lite…
“I don’t have to justify my belief in the accusations against Trump, because I hold no such belief”. .. “I think the accusations against Trump are probably true…”
I see. Well. That clears it up.
“I wouldn’t present it as fact the way you just did.”
“She wasn’t showing callous disregard for the situation. The full context of “What difference does it make” makes that clear.”
*grumbles* …making me go and find the videos….
She was ducking accountability for lying in real time, and we know she was lying in real time because her leaked Emails show her as telling people, Chelsea in particular, the truth about what happened. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (how they died, because the circumstances of their deaths is politically inconvenient for me, not that I’ve lied.) I think that’s pretty callous.
“It was a bitter laugh over the fact that she didn’t trust lie detector tests. This has been used to paint her as a soulless monster who laughs at rape victims. I’m underwhelmed.”
*grumbles* …making me go and find the audio…
Relevent laugh at 1:50. Was that a bitter laugh? I can’t bring myself to care overmuch, I don’t think it was. But how about this then: What she said is that she thinks the rapist is guilty, and it could be fairly implied that she believes that as the result of confidential communications with him, which is a violation of loyalty and confidentiality. Or are ethical breaches not beneath the dignity of the President?
“What, with “deplorables?” That’s not “dividing the country along partisan lines.” She was referring to actual Nazis. She was wrong to say half of Trump supporters met this criteria, which she later clarified.”
*grumbles* …making me go and find the transcript…
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
Just so we’re all aware… She never even said Nazis. No, she used all the buzzwords that the left has been broadbrushing the right with for the better part of a decade… The filter you choose to apply sometimes staggers me.
“Agreed, but see above, re: unproven. Jack was talking about PUBLIC demeanor. Your response did not address his point.”
I linked the video where she called the Clinton accusers a ‘Bimbo Eruption’ for fucks sake! Or is ‘Bimbo’ not a gendered slur when Hillary says it? I lost my copy of the progressive handbook. You choose not to believe the witnesses who says Hillary called Paul Fray a ‘Fucking Jew Bastard’. Fine. I don’t have the video of that…. I think you’re being naive, that’s not by any stretch of the imagination the first time Hillary has been attributed to anti-semetic remarks, and the Jews seem to believe it, because her support from them is about 30% less than it was with Bill, despite having the coveted D beside her name.
And this is the dance you do…. You pick up on the one thing you think you can pick at, and utterly ignore everything else…. pages and pages of responses get boiled down to the lowest hanging fruit you can see, and the rest is ignored. It’s frustrating, lazy, dishonest and you can do better.
There is a bit of a theory that when one observes evidence, everyone brings in various assumptions and biases that influence what they see. In the video above, I see nothing inappropriate about Clinton’s laughter; admittedly, other’s might, so let’s take a look at the circumstances.
From the beginning of the clip, it seems that Clinton discusses the prior case with an appropriate gravitas. She has a much stronger accent, which she has since lost, so the pattern is a bit unfamiliar, given her most recent speaking engagements. She describes this awful case where a young girl was raped, and her duty to defend the man accused.
There are a few possible confidentiality issues, but some key observations: she likely challenged the polygraph in court, so that would be public record. Second, her client did plead guilty to the charges brought before the court; it is not necessarily a breach of confidentiality to admit that evidence might have existed to convict her client of a worse crime.
However, the gist of the interview was the absurd miscarriage of justice where the relevant evidence was mishandled and destroyed. The crime lab destroyed the relevant portion of the accused’s underwear, and she had to take a subway ride into the Bronx (carrying an evidence bag with the aforementioned underwear, to meet someone who would test the pair and testify that no usable evidence could be found. This is an objectively surreal situation, and I would find it surprising if she kept a perfectly straight face while telling the story (she would then also face accusations of being a humorless robot – she cannot win in this regard).
There are many incidents of Hillary setting a poor example of behavior, even behavior that skirts uncomfortably close to criminal. This behavior is worthy of criticism or condemnation as necessary. However, her overall public persona has been one of a professional stateswoman. I do not believe that this can be denied. She has severe flaws that undermine the persona she projects, but if children mimicked the public behavior and demeanor of Mrs. Clinton, teachers everywhere would be proud.
Trump children would burn down the school.
“From the beginning of the clip, it seems that Clinton discusses the prior case with an appropriate gravitas.”
Part of it might be in my ear…. But…. There’s almost no way this can be seen as “appropriate”. Look, even if she is actually being bitter about the case… And I still don’t hear that when I listen to the clip…. There is no situation where it is appropriate to throw your client under the bus, no matter how many years later, on radio. If she didn’t feel comfortable talking about her client in the terms she should have as a lawyer, maybe she shouldn’t have brought it up. Is this too hard on her? Am I expecting perfection. I might accept that criticism if this was an isolated incident.
And this is the thing with Clinton…. There are always three different ways to call out her inappropriate behaviour on almost any topic because she very rarely actually does anything properly. She is the master of the Appearance of Impropriety… And I can’t tell whether she’s gotten away with it for so long because the bars have such a shitty history of policing their own, or because she’s a Clinton and laws are for little people, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary is criticised as often as she is because she does a lot of things that deserve criticism.
“There are a few possible confidentiality issues, but some key observations: she likely challenged the polygraph in court, so that would be public record.”
I don’t think you understand what went on here… She had her client take the polygraph, which displayed a favourable outcome for her trial. If it had been entered into evidence, she would not have challenged it, it would have been her job to defend it from challenge.
“This is an objectively surreal situation, and I would find it surprising if she kept a perfectly straight face while telling the story (she would then also face accusations of being a humorless robot – she cannot win in this regard).”
Perhaps she wins by not bringing it up. Maybe, some stories don’t get told. Maybe, some secrets and confidences are more important than a 30 second radio bit. I can’t give this to you. This is a 6th Amendment issue, and you’re just wrong.
“However, her overall public persona has been one of a professional stateswoman. I do not believe that this can be denied.”
I deny it. Look, Hillary lies like she breathes… about everything. From things as small as: “What do you carry on you at all times?” “Hot sauce!”, to things of national import. She’s seen as a robot because she acts like one, entire situations are fabricated to make her look more human (I’m thinking about the Chipotles debacle.)
“if children mimicked the public behavior and demeanor of Mrs. Clinton, teachers everywhere would be proud.”
I wish there was a way that I could quote that sentence in bold, pink, randomly generated font surrounded by music notes so I could adequately display the kind of derision I think they deserve. If she’s teaching anyone everything it’s that you can lie your way to the top and it doesn’t matter how brazen your lies are if enough people agree with them. She’s toxic, and only a “professional stateswoman” if you assume that your politicians must lie, lie often, and lie poorly. Get better role models, for Christ’s sake.
“Trump children would burn down the school.”
Probably.
She was ducking accountability for lying in real time, and we know she was lying in real time because her leaked Emails show her as telling people, Chelsea in particular, the truth about what happened.
No, her e-mail to Chelsea didn’t contain the “truth” about what happened. It contained what she believed at the time.
Clinton’s email said that the attack was perpetrated by an “Al Qaeda like group.” This refers to Ansar al-Sharia, who initially took responsibility for the attack. The very next day, they withdrew their statement. Three months later, the United States was STILL unclear about exactly who committed the attack:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-ansar-al-sharia/
By the way, Ansar al-Sharia ALSO said that the attackers were responding to the anti-Islam video. The notion that it was either a terrorist attack OR a reaction to the video never made sense; it was always a false dichotomy.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php
The intelligence situation was incredibly complex at this time. Some reports said it was an organized terrorist attack, some said it was the result of a protest. These are facts.
It is possible that Clinton believed all along that the attack had nothing to do with the anti-Islam video, and was an organized and pre-planned terrorist attack, and deliberately chose to lie to the American people. But given that no one knew any of these facts with absolute certainty for months, I find that theory incredibly unlikely, and not worth serious attention.
That this theory was used as the basis for multiple, years-long investigations, not one of which found any evidence for the theory–is egregious, and grounds for a little sarcasm.
(The fact that the e-mail server scandal–which did have a legitimate basis to it, unlike Benghazi–emerged from the Benghazi investigations is moral luck, and doesn’t justify the partisan witch hunt nature of the Benghazi investigations.)
“Clinton’s email said that the attack was perpetrated by an “Al Qaeda like group.” […] Three months later, the United States was STILL unclear about exactly who committed the attack:”
You know very well I’m talking about the lie that this was a spontaneous outrage mob caused by a European comic. The lie was that Benghazi wasn’t a prepared terrorist attack, the exact perpetrator was irrelevant.
“The notion that it was either a terrorist attack OR a reaction to the video never made sense; it was always a false dichotomy.”
That’s true… But I didn’t make that dichotomy, the State Department did when they specifically ruled out a terrorist attack and specifically blamed the comic.
“The intelligence situation was incredibly complex at this time. Some reports said it was an organized terrorist attack, some said it was the result of a protest. These are facts.”
I won’t deny any of that. But it’s also a fact that she said something politically convenient to the media, and what ended up being the truth to her daughter. What a coinkydink.
What I find staggering is how fast people like you are willing to assume incompetence in Hillary when incompetence would explain away malice, and in the next breath talk about how she is supremely competent, experienced and fit for office. Is it possible that as an alternative to being corrupt that she’s just merely borderline retarded? Sure…. But how does that translate into being fit for the Presidency?
“not one of which found any evidence for the theory”
These are the lies you tell yourself. The evidence is obvious… She went out and said those things, and over time we’ve found more evidence, even if it isn’t actionable evidence, that she lied and knew she lied. The truth of the matter is that even if tomorrow she came out and admitted it, it’s not a crime. No charges were ever going to be brought up here. Incompetence and Dishonesty is not criminal. Obama was never brought up on charges for “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.” The lack of charges doesn’t mean that statement was true.
You know very well I’m talking about the lie that this was a spontaneous outrage mob caused by a European comic.
You don’t know what you are talking about. No one ever blamed a comic. The issue was whether or not an anti-Islam video made in the United States provoked the attack. You can’t even get your own propaganda right!
That’s true… But I didn’t make that dichotomy, the State Department did when they specifically ruled out a terrorist attack and specifically blamed the comic.
The State Department never “ruled out” a terrorist attack. That literally never happened.
What I find staggering is how fast people like you are willing to assume incompetence in Hillary
I didn’t assume incompetence in Hillary in regards to the Benghazi attack. As I said, no one in the government knew with certainty who was involved in the attack for months.
I’ll resume this conversation when you’ve acquainted yourself with the basic facts of this case. It is clear you are not informed on even the basics of what happened in Benghazi or who said what when–you’re just spewing right-wing talking points that you only half-heard, and thus aren’t even spewing them correctly.
“You don’t know what you are talking about. No one ever blamed a comic. The issue was whether or not an anti-Islam video made in the United States provoked the attack. You can’t even get your own propaganda right!”
You know why after four years the unimportant details blur for me? Because they’re unimportant. I don’t care if it was a comic, a cartoon, or a full length picture, I don’t care if it was produced in Europe, America, or Bangkok, I don’t care if it’s called a cock-flavoured lollipop… The form of media was irrelevant, and I probably confused it with Charlie Hebdo or something… The Lie is relevant.
And as I already showed you, there was no Lie. Ansar al-Sharia said themselves that the video was a motivating factor in the attack. So did the prisoner we have in custody who played a key role in the attack.
It was always a terrorist attack, and it was always motivated at least in part by the video. No one in the administration ever claimed otherwise. No one in the administration has ever refuted the position that the video played a role, even though they did walk back their initial estimation that it was a spontaneous protest.
I linked the video where she called the Clinton accusers a ‘Bimbo Eruption’ for fucks sake!
You…you realize you didn’t do that, right?
You linked to a video where someone accused Clinton of calling Bill’s accusers that. This accusation played over footage of Clinton addressing an audience, but it does NOT show Clinton saying these words herself.
Did you not watch this video yourself to confirm it said what you thought it said?
The word “bimbo” would indeed be sexist coming from Clinton, but you’ve failed to provide any evidence she ever said that, and you have failed to provide evidence that Clinton’s “public demeanor” includes racial and sexist slurs.
You know, I was eating lunch at the time I wrote that, so I watched it with the sound muted. I’d previously seen the video, and I was sure it was on there, but you’re right, it’s not. And I can’t find a copy of the video without the anchor talking over her. I can find video of her calling Monica Lewinsky a quote “deranged looneytune”, but I’ll grant you that’s not gendered. And it’s not like she was wrong, Monica was lying, right? And being coorect makes it more dignified, right?
I guess my question to you is do you really need the video proof? Do you really not believe that Hillary either called these women Bimbos, or was capable of it? Is that the one thing, on top of this mountain of other things, that will finally convince you? Because if it will, I’ll make that effort.
No Humble, in the deluge of everything you’ve mentioned, he’s got one tiny bit where you may be inaccurate. That’s enough to cling to.
@Tex It’s actually staggering… You can go on YouTube and watch compilation videos of Hillary lying or saying just genuinely awful things for literally hours without having any of the material repeat…. There are politicians who have been active decades longer than Hillary without a fraction of the controversy… Bernie, off the top of my head. And yet these bobblehead progressives can’t help but line up to poke at the lowest of hanging fruit.
“I guess my question to you is do you really need the video proof? Do you really not believe that Hillary either called these women Bimbos, or was capable of it?”
I don’t know if she did. Because she didn’t do it publicly. Your argument is that “bimbo eruptions” is a point against Clinton’s “public demeanor.” That’s simply not true.
“Is that the one thing, on top of this mountain of other things, that will finally convince you?”
Convince me of what? What even is your argument? That Clinton is a bad person? That she’s unfit for the presidency? That her public demeanor is undignified? Because these are three separate arguments, and only the last one addresses the portion of Jack’s post we’ve been talking about; you’d like to pretend they are all the same thing because you can’t prove the third in isolation.
I don’t see the meaningful separation. Is a tree a leaf, a twig or a trunk? Is the tree not a tree without them all? My argument is that she’s a bad, undignified person, and that makes her unfit for the presidency…. Even though she might be the better choice this election cycle.
And that’s not even an argument I’ve rebutted! I’ve rebutted your claims about Clinton’s public behavior.
No Humble, in the deluge of everything you’ve mentioned, he’s got one tiny bit where you may be inaccurate. That’s enough to cling to.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve addressed nearly every single one of HT’s points, it’s just taken me all day–refuting bullshit is a lot more time-consuming than posting it. You’ve just sat in the cheering section and not contributed one iota of substance to this conversation.
Chris…. You’re entire contribution has been variations on the theme of “nuh uh, prove it.” Which I did… I backed up with evidence everything except “Bimbos”. That you chose not to accept some of the evidence does not mean I didn’t provide it. I’m tired. The discussion ate up an enormous amount of my day, and I think your partisanship is incurable. I am more than confident that the average passerby could read this and understand the gist of what was said, and I think I represented my view well… Your lack of comprehension bothers me, but at the end of the day it remains your problem. My one lament is that I didn’t get to write “defenestrate”, a good discussion is not complete until someone is told to eject themselves forcefully out a window. Alas.
She was ducking accountability for lying in real time, and we know she was lying in real time because her leaked Emails show her as telling people, Chelsea in particular, the truth about what happened.
I’m not sure why my previous attempt to address this wasn’t posted; I could have sworn I pressed submit. It was full of links disproving this claim.
Sufficed to say that no, Clinton’s e-mail to Chelsea wasn’t the “truth.” It was what she knew at the time. Ansar al-Sharia had just taken credit for the attack–the next day, they would deny it and say that it was prompted by the anti-Islam video.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php
Three months later, the U.S. still didn’t know exactly who was involved in the attack.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-ansar-al-sharia/
The idea that Clinton “knew” it was a terrorist attack and that it had nothing to do with a video requires us to believe that she knew more than the rest of the entire intelligence community, which was debating and issuing contradictory reports for months. The theory is that despite the multiple CIA reports saying the attack was inspired by the video, despite the terrorist in captivity saying he was inspired by the video, despite multiple reports by journalists on the ground that the attackers cited the video, despite Ansar al-Sharia taking credit then denying it then taking it again, only Hillary Clinton knew the REAL story and chose to lie about it, for years, through multiple investigations, none of which were able to provide any evidence that she was lying rather than simply reporting what she believed to be the best intel at the time.
You’ll forgive me if I find this theory unlikely, and think that the multiple time-wasting, politically motivated investigations deserved to be met with some mild sarcasm.
(The fact that the Benghazi hearings produces the much more legitimate e-mail scandal is moral luck, and does nothing to make the initial investigations any less partisan witch hunts.)
Two or more links cause the comment to be held for approval. It’s why I tend not to cite with links unless absolutely necessary.
“I wouldn’t present it as fact the way you just did.”
grumble typing too fast… grumble not proofreading… grumble mea culpa.
I presented it as (Google This) because it would become immediately apparent upon the most cursory of searches that it was a quote from a book, and the only think that couldn’t be immediately proven or disproven by going to the tape. I assume it’s more likely than not true because of the corroborations, but I’ll let people figure that out for themselves.Your assumption of laziness is projection.
Chris, please note the Hillary face on the left (in the orange Blofeld outfit) where she’s mockingly saying something dismissive about wiping a server with a dust cloth in response to a legitimate question. That performance was certainly not dignified, and it verged on a cackle.
Chris & Humble Talent,
It seems to me that the two of you are basically arguing about who’s propaganda is more accurate; you both win and you both loose. Propaganda is built in such a way that there is always just enough truth to suck people in to the rest of it; the rest of it is the intentional lying by omission and the blatant smearing implications that are usually twisted intellectually dishonest fallacies. Both sides are actively engaging in a political propaganda “war”. The whole truth is ignored in this campaign.
You and I and the rest of the United States citizens making up “We the People” are the big losers in this election campaign.
Note To Chris’ Double Standard: How dare you stick the meaning of a word like “demeanor” in the face of someone when you literally ignore the meaning of the words you write and have literally personally “attacked” someone that pointed out such a literal thing in one of your comments. Literally. Was it your intention to look hypocritical?
“Propaganda is information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view.”
I suppose if I have a point of view at this point, it’s that the only winner in this election cycle is Voyager 1, currently speeding away from the Earth at the rate of 17 KMpS. I don’t understand people who defend Clinton…. Probably in much the same way as they don’t understand the people who defend Trump (And to be clear, I do not.) If someone wants to say that Trump is worse than Clinton, and so they’re going to vote for Clinton, I can understand that. I can agree with that. Heck, If I could vote in this election, I might even do that. But this idea that Clinton is “Good” or “Competent” or “Dignified” or somehow something other than a slightly smaller pile of shit is social rot, and needs to be identified as such.
The one I like best is:
“I ain’t no ways tired (pronounced tarred)”
Take a look at some pictures of Hillary during the debate. That woman has “blood in her eye”! Frankly I don’t care if you post a nasty picture of Trump.
Is The Current Photo Of Trump In The Site Background Unfair?
I think the photo of Trump that Jack is using is fair game and it’s a reasonably accurate representation of the overall attitude of the man.
Personally, I wouldn’t be using any photos of any of the candidates at this point of the campaign, I’d start using something more generic, maybe something like…
Or maybe something like…
Of of course there’s also the one I created for this campaign season…
Maybe a picture of the founding fathers crying.
Jack, no-one could be more antiTrump than I am.
Using photos taken from unflattering angles is always wrong. So I disagree with you here. There are plenty of others that depict this evil clown accurately, yet without caricature.
Your photo is not objective in nature, but propaganda. Unworthy of you snd your high ideals. Trump hss this effect on people.
Kudos Zoe.
Agreed
*cough*
Jack looking at the pic of Trump closely, it looks like he’s about to “cut one”. Is that fair?
I don’t see that. It looks to me like he’s preparing to say “fuck.”
Jack Marshall said, “It looks to me like he’s preparing to say “fuck.” “
That is exactly how I see it too.
Maybe he’s going to ask someone to pull his finger.
Look, the issue at hand is whether the Trump photo on this website is fair; it is not whether Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar who if elected will ruin the United States Government. The photo is unfair–no matter how we feel about Trump, he does not deserve the Breitbart/Drudge treatment. If such a picture exists, showing him in an explanatory mode, it should be used. He doesn’t deserve it after what he has said for the past few days about how he expects the election to be stolen from him, but nevertheless . . .
But he always looks like that.
Bingo.
saw a TV ad for the next debate where he said if HRC were elected it would be “the end of America,” or words to that effect. This guy is so far outside the norms of political discourse, the picture is an understatement. Besides which, there are plenty of goofy pictures of HRC on the other column. Give Jack a break..
Okay, okay, after talking about rigged elections and saying maybe he won’t accept a loss, Trump deserves the dumbest-looking photographs one can find. ‘Twould be great if someone had a shot of him molesting a woman.
Which would only be fair to use if molesting women was relevant to the post.
I needed a laugh yesterday, someone gave it to me so I’ll share it with y’all.
Here is one instance that I can truly actually laugh at Donald Trump.
Without further ado, please enjoy…