portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

election fraud | gender & sexuality

Why Hillary Was Late at Debate

What Hillary Was Up To
What Hillary Was Up To
A Gold Bowl for an Old Hole
A Gold Bowl for an Old Hole
So Trump thinks Hillary was "disgusting" for having to pee during her debate break. What is more repulsive than taking a dump in a SOLID GOLD toilet bowl every morning? When Trump sees starving children on TV, or ragged refugees on the road to Limbo, does he ever just once think to himself that, hell, here I am pooping on a toilet bowl worth three million dollars ($1000 an ounce) while millions suffer all around me. A solid gold bowl has to be the epitome of sheer out of control EGO, parading it's utter contempt for the sad realities all around him. "Gold? Gold is NOTHING to me!" THIS is the great hope of Western Civilization? THIS guy is the best that the freaking USA can produce to represent the ideals and aspirations of the Land of the Free? Trump feels free to verbally "pee" on everyone and everything he disagrees with or doesn't comprehend. His inane comments are absolutely the hallmark of a truly sick and stunted personality whose mantra is "Neener Neener" and Guru is Midas.

R U serius ? 22.Dec.2015 22:21


obviously / apparently who ever wrote this post...

takes DT 'seriously' (?)

i.e. thinks/believes somehow that Trump is some sort of 'serious' candidate for pResident,

and that the Righthanded Cleft Of The One-Party System will actually permit him to become its nominee in the race?

Trump is a clown, only takes himself (and nothing / no-one in the world) seriously.

he's a multibillionaire who doesn't care what he does with his money or what happens to it. Right now he's just enjoying the ride (and we all should too)

Trump, for his part is merely 'playing' to all the "politically incorrect" japes and backtalk his 'supporters' all want / wish to hear. (utterly deluded right-wingers who wish the current GOP "establishment" would take a dive, are thoroughly convinced that Trump somehow has "got the GOP establishment and-or 'The Liberal Media' on the run".... Lol, Rofl.)

the 'joke' is 100% on those such as for example his supporters / poll-voters, who take what he says 'seriously' and believe him to be a "viable" candidate.

When it is they who are being played.

As is-are, apparently the 'outraged' person who authored this post.
(and others similarly 'outraged' on the Internetz by the joke-clown Donald Trump)

anyway my advice:

Don't sweat the Donald Trump (gender-wise or otherwise).

furthermore you (whoever 'you' are??) are best off not paying any attention whatsoever to the utter pawn-game of the pResidential campaign. It is an absolute waste of valuable activist time, plus precious time you have left here on Earth.

Never mind the U.S. pResidential campaign.

Until the current system/form of government is completely overthrown and-or replaced, it matters not who occupies the WH (as proven/demonstrated by the past 8 years of Obummer)

Joe Rogan Predicts The Rise Of Donald Trump (2006) 22.Dec.2015 23:02



( whoever posted ^this clip from a 10-year-old Rogan live performance, to YouTube on behalf of the Bernie Sanders campaign may have been opportunistically suggestive about the supposed "Donald Trump" connection within ....

but, the gist of the ^^^ initial poster Bozo the Noun's frustration with "truly sick and stunted personality"/"great hope of Western Civilization" etc. dysfunction is captured here.

anyway the point again, is: Don't bother with any aspect of the U.S pResidential Camp-Game. )

Anti-Repubs Focus On Gold Toilets! 23.Dec.2015 01:25


Look up. Above the title, to the left -- the tags here are: "election fraud | gender & sexuality" What do you suppose "gender & sexuality" have to do with golden toilets? Might there perhaps likely be a woman running against Donald Trump? Who might that be?

"[Bill]Clinton signed it[NAFTA] into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that 'NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.'[9]" -- Wikipedia (limited reliability) -- NAFTA

Now let's look at the results of it, and Hillary Clinton's convoluted, yet undisputed support of it. First the results:

CNN Money -- McDonald's helps workers get food stamps -- October 24, 2013

The [McDonald's]helpline operator never asked Salgado how much she made per hour, and how many hours per week she worked beyond the fact that she was a full-time employee. But she said that Salgado "definitely should be able to qualify for both food stamps and heating assistance."

The representative then pointed her toward a number of resources in Chicago, such as food pantries and a program that would help cover some of her heating bill. She said she would email her specific phone numbers and programs.

The operator also explained that the McResource line is available to help McDonald's workers who need help navigating the process of getting public assistance. The helpline's phone number is posted in fliers at many McDonald's locations.

Surely this will help compensate for student debt garnisheed from the worker's virtually minimum wage.

Business Insider -- Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The "Giant Sucking Sound" -- Feb. 11, 2011
 link to www.businessinsider.com

Both of [Ross]Perot's opponents (George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) argued that NAFTA would create jobs in the U.S. because of business expansion.

However, the goods balance of trade for the U.S. with Mexico has been negative and steadily growing over the years. In 2010 it amounted to $61.6 billion, which was 9.5% of the total goods trade deficit last year.

So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

So now Detroit is totally wrecked, and tens of millions are flipping burgers and serving Wall-Mart food stamp recipients. NAFTA really did its job.

Common Dreams -- Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy -- by John Nichols -- March 21, 2008
 link to www.commondreams.org

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning." But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

So what's Donald trump saying about these things:

Associated Press | The Big Story -- Trump: NAFTA trade deal a 'disaster,' says he'd 'break' it -- Sep. 25, 2015
 link to bigstory.ap.org

There is no question that Congress would need to approve any kind of import tariffs Trump might want to slap on products made by companies that move jobs overseas. In his interview with "60 Minutes," Trump cites his desire to do so, using his favorite example Ford Motor Co. moving production of some autos from the U.S. to Mexico.

"If they want to sell that car in the United States, they pay a tax," he[Trump] said. "Here's what's going to happen: They're not going to build their plant there. They're going to build it in the United States."

Will we worry about golden toilets, or about having a home where we can have our own humble toilets?

I don't trust Trump or endorse him, but I will certainly not fret over golden toilets.

Of course, If we had machine-free simple score voting instead of hacked election contraptions and single-selection ("plurality", two-party) voting we would have none of these problems in the first place. See:

Today's "Democracy" Is Merely A Mask For Tyranny. Why Bother To Vote?

the idea, not the man 23.Dec.2015 07:29


I don't take Trump seriously, but anyone who thinks he's just a buffoon and that what he's saying isn't taken seriously by a whole lot of people I guess doesn't get out very much. Hey, I think he's likely the most blatant demagogue of any national candidate of which I've memory, and beyond local dipshits and gangsters, might rate up there with historical version such as Huey Long...

But I'm telling you flat out that he appeals to the neo-libertarians and those who don't really know who in hell they are until they have some emotional response to what's said. And it stays with them. People are really frustrated beyond the entertainment. That Trump is really a neo-libertarian authoritarian means little to them. I think his masters (and he's hardly a master of anything but his bowel movements) love the rhetoric.

Myself, I think if the RNC wanted to have squashed Trump like a bug that they could have easily through their influences outside of the political sphere.

Look how good it made Cruz appear; almost a moderate. Myself, I think the RNC would rather have Hillary than anyone. She'll basically do their bidding, while being also an easy target for criticism. Besides, it's 2008 all over again. What sane Republican would want to oversee that from a position in which they can be held so officially accountable? Much more fun watching (and manipulating) that game from the sidelines.

But you're right. Don't take the golden toilet seriously. Even he knows you gotta keep some gold stashed.

shaker 24.Dec.2015 00:43


yes, I think you got (much of) the point of what was said earlier....

in general, of course I think the best idea is not to take the overall U.S. presidential campaign seriously.

Trump: yes the 'idea' (ideas?) of Trump is what's "important" here. And no one can deny he has "struck a nerve" among so many of the "rightist"-identified U.S. electorate today...

their delusional interpretation: "Lookit how Trump is stickin' it to the man, bro!"

perhaps (?) it's a post-Tea Party attitude among these frothy followers of Trump - they've seen how they've been sold down the river by Rand Paul (and other TPers) for example who've becpme part and parcel of the purported 'GOP establishment'.

Ted Cruz might hold out some hope as a "neo-Tea Party" (?) representative, but it's really Trump, the master of reality TV, who has been able with no small help from his own personal millions-to-burn at his disposal, to pull off this illusionist stageshow. He's the 'great communicator', at least for the moment in this campaign.

But I'll re-emphasize what was said earlier: Donald Trump in 2015-16 is on this stage, now, for his pleasure and disposal alone. He absolutely is just sounding off... loves the reverberations of his very own echo chamber, and the 'masses' cheering him on; responding to exactly what they (and he) _want_ to hear... no matter how empty the rhetoric may in fact be.

and when its all over, he takes his gold and goes home.

as you suggest Hillary will only be a "disappointment" to the 'neo-libertarian' Trump-dreamers who think that DT is somehow 'sticking it to the man/GOP "establishment"/"liberal media"/etc.'.....

Well 24.Dec.2015 07:49


Myself, I don't think that the Repugs have taken the office of President seriously for at least a couple of decades. The mechanisms and money of those behind the party transcend presidential power. They know they can manipulate the office. If their delberate destruction of Carter's presidency and Reagan wasn't a show of their outright disdain, GW punctuated and added exclamation marks to the fact.

Historically in general, seems the power behind the throne really runs things. We might love our 'cults of personality' and thinking that ruthless men of the nature of Hitler or Stalin do it alone. We'll dream a demon if not given one outright; gods, heroes, and messiahs, also, that it all becomes one large tragedy. Ad nauseam.