Neither Bill's Wife Nor The Billionaire.....

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
....your vote is either for the collective or for the Constitution.
1. Don't be tricked into believing it's about personality when it's about politics.

Here's how I can prove it: yesterday, I asked a number of our board Liberals this question:

As the candidate you have chosen is known as a criminal and congenital liar, revealed to have sold access to the United States Government, and wishes for open borders ....
.....while the other is acclaimed as a successful entrepreneur, who has promised to embrace the Constitution.....
....what is the argument in favor of the former over the latter?

Not one deigned to answer that question.

2. Now....the only explanations for not taking the opportunity to convince readers of the worthiness of the Democrat candidate would be

a. that there is no cogent basis for the choice...or....

b. reliable Democrat voters have been trained to pull the "D" lever no matter the issue or the candidate.



3.--Rather than how they each look, or how filthy their mouth is.....how about the question of which supports the Constitution.
Let's compare the two in their understanding of the Supreme Court:

a. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.

. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.

If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."


b. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


c. The role of the court stems directly from our Judeo-Christian foundation:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15


d. Now Hillary Clinton's view:

".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate


This candidate wants a court that follows one political agenda.

Do you?
 
4. We have one candidate who favors American sovereignty....and the other who has stated that she does not.



Jean Bodin, French jurist (16th century), one of the first to address sovereignty, understood the King of France as an independent political authority, meaning that he did not owe allegiance to either the Holy Roman Emperor, or to the Pope.

The EU is a case in point.
Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant. From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.

And....this is the Hillary Clinton/George Soros view, as well.




The Soros confederation, Hillary Clinton as a high ranking officer in the 'shadow government,' believes that there should be no borders....free access to America.



Hillary was quoted as saying she wanted open borders....and tried to claim she meant for electrical grid.

"In a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013, Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

This secret speech was released as part of the Podesta emails obtained by Wikileaks."
Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Wants Open Borders - Breitbart



This is what you are voting for with a Democrat vote...open borders and an emasculated Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
And....just as I said...


"U.N. GOES ALL-IN FOR UNLIMITED MIGRATION

Hillary an enthusiastic supporter of globalist plan for U.S. cities

the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world."
Read more at U.N. goes all-in for unlimited migration
 
5. Cut through the fog of hair color, medical or tax records, or foul-mouth innuendo.....

The essence of one's vote amounts to whether one sees America as exceptional, a force for good in the world, and a successful experiment in self-government....or whether one is prepared to endow some 'special' bureaucrats with complete and total control over your life and opportunities.


a. "ONCE UPON A TIME, hardly anyone dissented from the idea that, for better or worse, the United States of America was different from all other nations. Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone.


b. In all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.
In all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.


c. Other characteristics that were unique to America gradually manifested themselves. For instance, in the 20th century, social scientists began speculating as to why America was the only country in the developed world where socialism had failed to take root.


d. In fact, the first reference to the term “American exceptionalism” was not in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, where it has mistakenly been thought to have originated, but in a book by the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in connection with the absence in America of a strong socialist party. " [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm]
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2012&month=10





6. Reflecting on his travels in the United States in his seminal work, Democracy in America, French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville writes that the "position of the Americans" is "quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/american_exceptionalis



Joseph Stalin actually condemned the "heresy of American exceptionalism..." [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/american_exceptionalism.]

...his view picked up by academics and Liberals everywhere....and fed it to the captive audience at universities.



It is clear how Americans would vote in this election.
 
Sometimes what is not said speaks more loudly than what is....

This was posed in the OP:

As the candidate you have chosen is known as a criminal and congenital liar, revealed to have sold access to the United States Government, and wishes for open borders ....
.....while the other is acclaimed as a successful entrepreneur, who has promised to embrace the Constitution.....
....what is the argument in favor of the former over the latter?



If there was a cogent, persuasive answer, It would have been provided by supporters of Bill's wife....

...yet not a single one could be conjured up.



The ineluctable conclusion is that Democrat voters are programmed to follow the orders of their elites, even when they cannot come up with a single logical answer as to why they do so.
 
The OP, who routinely calls Bill Clinton the rapist, now desperately trying to justify her horrific hypocrisy,

supporting Trump the rapist.
 
why did you never learn to write using English paragraphs PoliSpice? :bang3: Couldn't afford to attend a proper Hagwon? :boohoo:
 
....your vote is either for the collective or for the Constitution.
1. Don't be tricked into believing it's about personality when it's about politics.

Here's how I can prove it: yesterday, I asked a number of our board Liberals this question:

As the candidate you have chosen is known as a criminal and congenital liar, revealed to have sold access to the United States Government, and wishes for open borders ....
.....while the other is acclaimed as a successful entrepreneur, who has promised to embrace the Constitution.....
....what is the argument in favor of the former over the latter?

Not one deigned to answer that question.

2. Now....the only explanations for not taking the opportunity to convince readers of the worthiness of the Democrat candidate would be

a. that there is no cogent basis for the choice...or....

b. reliable Democrat voters have been trained to pull the "D" lever no matter the issue or the candidate.



3.--Rather than how they each look, or how filthy their mouth is.....how about the question of which supports the Constitution.
Let's compare the two in their understanding of the Supreme Court:

a. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.

. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.

If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."


b. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


c. The role of the court stems directly from our Judeo-Christian foundation:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15


d. Now Hillary Clinton's view:

".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate


This candidate wants a court that follows one political agenda.

Do you?


The Clinton version of 'justice'......judges who only find for the Left's favorites, is in effect in the world right now:


"It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?"
No Justice in the Netherlands
No Justice in the Netherlands


One can only hope that Americans come to their senses.
 
....your vote is either for the collective or for the Constitution.
1. Don't be tricked into believing it's about personality when it's about politics.

Here's how I can prove it: yesterday, I asked a number of our board Liberals this question:

As the candidate you have chosen is known as a criminal and congenital liar, revealed to have sold access to the United States Government, and wishes for open borders ....
.....while the other is acclaimed as a successful entrepreneur, who has promised to embrace the Constitution.....
....what is the argument in favor of the former over the latter?

Not one deigned to answer that question.

2. Now....the only explanations for not taking the opportunity to convince readers of the worthiness of the Democrat candidate would be

a. that there is no cogent basis for the choice...or....

b. reliable Democrat voters have been trained to pull the "D" lever no matter the issue or the candidate.



3.--Rather than how they each look, or how filthy their mouth is.....how about the question of which supports the Constitution.
Let's compare the two in their understanding of the Supreme Court:

a. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.

. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.

If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."


b. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


c. The role of the court stems directly from our Judeo-Christian foundation:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15


d. Now Hillary Clinton's view:

".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate


This candidate wants a court that follows one political agenda.

Do you?
1. Yes Trump is a liar and criminal
2. You don't do the same?
3. The Supreme Court now represents corporate America not we the people.
 
....your vote is either for the collective or for the Constitution.
1. Don't be tricked into believing it's about personality when it's about politics.

Here's how I can prove it: yesterday, I asked a number of our board Liberals this question:

As the candidate you have chosen is known as a criminal and congenital liar, revealed to have sold access to the United States Government, and wishes for open borders ....
.....while the other is acclaimed as a successful entrepreneur, who has promised to embrace the Constitution.....
....what is the argument in favor of the former over the latter?

Not one deigned to answer that question.

2. Now....the only explanations for not taking the opportunity to convince readers of the worthiness of the Democrat candidate would be

a. that there is no cogent basis for the choice...or....

b. reliable Democrat voters have been trained to pull the "D" lever no matter the issue or the candidate.



3.--Rather than how they each look, or how filthy their mouth is.....how about the question of which supports the Constitution.
Let's compare the two in their understanding of the Supreme Court:

a. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially.
....the execution of the laws must take into account human frailty, and must acknowledge the limits of reason, and, therefore, resort to impartial statutes in order to be fair.

. Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?
What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.
It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.

If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."


b. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


c. The role of the court stems directly from our Judeo-Christian foundation:
"Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly."
Leviticus 19:15


d. Now Hillary Clinton's view:

".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate


This candidate wants a court that follows one political agenda.

Do you?
1. Yes Trump is a liar and criminal
2. You don't do the same?
3. The Supreme Court now represents corporate America not we the people.



Not to worry, comrade.....


...there is a dacha outside of Москва waiting for you in the worker's paradise.
 

Forum List

Back
Top