Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Secret Service wary of Mattis having plan to kill everyone he meets at Trump Tower

 

post-98-0-32969400-1479814499_thumb.jpg

 

NEW YORK — Agents with the Secret Service are reportedly stressed and uneasy about a meeting between President-elect Donald Trump and retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, since the legendary four-star commander has a plan to kill everyone he meets at Trump Tower.

 

Mattis, 66, was summoned to Trump’s New York City penthouse on Saturday to discuss the possibility of his being named as Defense Secretary.

 

As part of his pre-trip planning, sources say that Mattis wrote a five-paragraph order with detailed plans to kill everyone on his way to the building, to include TSA workers in the security screening area at his home airport, the pilots flying him to New York, all the passengers on the aircraft, the taxi driver who picked him up, multiple people who were rude to him on the subway, and staff in the lobby of Trump Tower.

 

When reached by reporters, Mattis declined to comment on whether he had a plan to kill anyone else.

 

Still, a source familiar with the meeting said that Mattis was hopeful for the future president. At the end of the hour-long meeting, Mattis believed he was high on the list for Defense Secretary, though he issued a tearful warning to Trump and his staff before he left, saying, “if you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.â€

 

In an apparent act of goodwill, Mattis only killed three people who looked at him the wrong way in the elevator, a new career low for a retired military officer who averages at least 12 kills per day.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Considered For Trump Cabinet

 

 

Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard could be joining Donald Trump's administration only months after she endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. Gabbard was scheduled to meet Monday with Trump and his transition team in New York City to discuss a possible top job at the Defense Department, State Department and the United Nations, according to media reports.

 

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, is the former vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. She resigned from her post earlier in the year to support Sanders because she said the DNC had inappropriately thrown its support behind Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump on Election Day. Gabbard did ultimately vote for Clinton after Sanders lost the nomination.

 

Trump promised in October he would only appoint Republicans to serve in his Cabinet. But at least one other Democrat has meet in recent days with Trump, including corporate education reformer Michelle Rhee, the former schools chief of Washington, D.C. She could be named Trump's education secretary.

 

Trump is also slated to meet Monday at Trump Tower with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Newt Gingrich. Trump is expected to name his cabinet members soon.

 

Gabbard could add some diversity to Trump's cabinet that looks now mostly to be comprised of white men. She is the first person born in American Samoa in Congress and Congress’s first elected Hindu.

 

"As a veteran, as a soldier, I've seen firsthand the true cost of war. … As we look at our choices as to who our next Commander-in-chief will be is to recognize the necessity to have a Commander-in-chief who has foresight. Who exercises good judgment. Who looks beyond the consequences -- who looks at the consequences of the actions that they are willing to take before they take those actions. So that we don't continue to find ourselves in these failures that have resulted in chaos in the Middle East and so much loss of life," Gabbard said when endorsing Sanders.

 

A new Morning Consult pollfound 46 percent of registered voters have a favorably view of the president-elect, and just as many Americans view him unfavorably. That's an improvement from before Election Day, when 37 percent of voters viewed him favorably and 61 percent viewed him unfavorably.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo...-160642017.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders: “It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.'"

 

 

 

Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is stepping up his critique of the Democratic Party taking an indirect swing at Hillary Clinton and other party leaders who he said don’t pay enough attention to inequality.

 

Democrats, according to the independent Vermont senator, need “go beyond identity politics†and use economic arguments to win elections rather than rely primarily on racial or gender appeals.

 

Sanders made his remarks following a speech he gave on Sunday at the Berklee Performance Center in Boston when a supporter asked him what advice he might give to help her become the second Latina U.S. senator.

 

Acknowledging that he was responding to his questioner “in a way that you may not be happy with,†Sanders said that he cared less about a candidate’s outward appearance than he did about his or her ideas.

 

“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.â€

 

The debate over how to handle Clinton’s loss to Republican Donald Trump has been roiling the Democratic Party ever since Election Night. Sanders acknowledged the contention, saying that it revealed a “division within the Democratic Party.â€

 

Despite his call for more of a focus on economic issues, Sanders repeatedly stressed that he supported racial and sexual diversity efforts, even if they were insufficient to get most Americans on board.

 

“It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans–all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen,†Sanders said before discussing populism.

 

Echoing themes he had touched on throughout his presidential campaign (and which Bill Clinton privately and futilely tried to get Democratic elites to accept), Sanders argued that Democrats had lost touch with average Americans and that was what led to the Trump victory.

 

“The working class of this country is being decimated. That’s why Donald Trump won. And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people, who understand that real median family income has gone down, that young people in many parts of this country have a very limited future, that life expectancy for many workers is going down.â€

 

He continued:

 

“People can’t afford healthcare, can’t afford medicine, can’t afford to send their kids to college. We need candidates–black and white and Latino and gay and male–we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of today.â€

 

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/bernie-sanders-it-is-not-good-enough-for-someone-to-say-im-a-woman-vote-for-me/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power - would make a great president on the basis that I am terrified of her, I've seen her speak and she'd do in the Wall Street folk before tea.

 

Hillary, however unlikeable, was/is part of the Wall Street clique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hypocrisy of Hillary's feminists

 

 

Disturbing shadows hang over the legacies of some of history’s greatest heroes. Martin Luther made anti-Semitic comments that would later fuel the Holocaust. Thomas Jefferson sired children with his slave. Gandhi forced underage girls to sleep naked in bed with him, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a serial adulterer. Even Mother Teresa was, in actuality, far from a saint: she had an unsettling philosophy of pain and suffering that bordered on sadism.

 

Feminists have dreamt of seeing a woman occupy the White House since Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to run for President in 1872. It seems likely that, in five weeks’ time, Hillary Clinton will at last fulfill that feminist dream. Yet a shadow every bit as dark as Gandhi’s or Mother Teresa’s hangs over the Hillary Clinton legacy: her husband’s alleged sexual abuse of women, and her own attempts to discredit and silence her husband’s accusers. Feminists, through their own silence, have abetted the Clintons in this tenebrous affair.

 

Juanita Broaddrick says that then-Arkansas-gubernatorial-candidate Bill Clinton raped her in a hotel room on a campaign stop in 1978, and the reality is that — for a 38-year-old rape allegation — her claim is a credible one. The hotel roommate who found her in her disheveled and injured state immediately after the rape has testified on her behalf. Multiple parties have testified that Broaddrick told them of the rape in the 70s and 80s, before it came to public light in the late 90s, while Bill Clinton mistress Elizabeth Gracen has confirmed the lip-biting kink that Broaddrick described. Newspapers from 1978 concur with the temporal details of Broaddrick’s account, including Bill’s presence in Little Rock that day. Given the he-said/she-said nature that typifies rape, the only details that could have possibly made Broaddrick’s case more compelling are a police report (complete with rape kit administration) or perhaps a stained blue dress.

 

Broaddrick’s detractors usually point to her 1998 affidavit denying the rape, which she later recanted. Feminists could explain to you that it’s understandable that a rape victim might not want to revisit her trauma on the national stage after 20 years, but they don’t. They could also explain to you that the existence of multiple Bill Clinton accusers (Eileen Wellstone, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Christy Zercher, to name a few) increases the likelihood that Broaddrick and at least some of these women are telling the truth — after all, they argued as much in the recent case of Emma “Mattress Girl†Sulkowicz — but they don’t.

 

Should Hillary Clinton be held personally responsible for her husband’s misbehavior? No; it certainly wasn’t her biting Juanita Broaddrick’s lip in that hotel room 38 years ago. But she should be held responsible for attempting to discredit his victims, staying married to a probable serial sex abuser, and allowing said abuser to campaign on her behalf. She should be held accountable for allowing her surrogates to slut-shame and trash-shame her husband’s mistresses, and her personal record when it comes to sex abuse isn’t exactly stellar. (Jacqueline Long or Kathy Shelton, anyone?)

 

But the feminists, by and large, remain silent. To their shame, Hillary-supporting feminists have shown more concern for the box office failures of a group of fictional female exorcists than they have the trauma of these flesh-and-blood women forced to watch their tormentors parade around the national scene to roaring applause. It’s become par for the course for feminists to aver on the rape allegations against Donald Trump while almost entirely ignoring the Clintonian sex abuse scandals.

 

When confronted directly with said allegations, feminists are quick to riposte with the rampant misogyny that is Donald Trump, but this is logically incoherent. That Trump is misogynist does not necessitate silence on the Clintons’ sins against women, especially during the primaries when feminist advocacy for Bill’s victims could have made a difference in who won the nomination.

 

And while I can sympathize with the feminist who is now reluctantly supporting Hillary because Trump is the only major alternative, less understandable are the great majority of feminists who enthusiastically supported Hillary in the primaries, looking the other way on her sins against women the entire time: feminists like Lena Dunham, Gloria Steinem, and Madeleine Albright. It is little wonder that Steinem and Albright made stunningly anti-feminist statements in the course of their support for Hillary during the primaries.

 

The battle to put a woman in the White House may soon be won, but if feminists continue to remain silent and not support the Clinton sex abuse victims, it can mean only one thing: feminism will have won the battle at the cost of its soul.

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/b...larys-feminists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...