Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Yo spidey
How about a direct link to the interview?

Meanwhile here are some Sarandon quotes:

“I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” Sarandon suggested without mentioning Trump’s name, after Chariton asked her why Clinton’s foreign policy went largely unchallenged during the Democratic primary.

“She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things, and very callously, I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is,” Sarandon said, adding, “I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

“So I’m curious to see if anyone brings up these things,” she continued.

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,'” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.

“Seriously I am not worried about a wall being built, he is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country… but seriously, I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is no transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it”:

.................................
I wanted Bernie
(you can't always get what you want)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

She's not going to Trump, which was my only point. Trump is twice as bad as Clinton on any of these issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As Larry King pointed out in the Sarandon interview:
2 votes
one for HRC, one for trump = zero
one for Trump and none for HRC = 1 for Trump

If Susan ain't voting for HRC............................then

 

You don't seem to have any idea what's wrong with Trump. And you seem unaware of the possibility that one can see what's wrong with Clinton and yet prefer her to Trump as a President - in fact, you have more than once presumed in error that a severe if somewhat mistaken Clinton critic (such as Sarandon) would therefore vote for Trump in preference. You also accept garbage from wingnut media sources as factual information, revealing a failure to perceive their nature in context.

So perspective is exactly what you don't seem to have, specifically.

The fact that you are arguing in favor of a Trump vote when criticizing Clinton, which you assume automatically, is something those with perspective have to deduce. The process goes something like this: true thing about Clinton, check; exaggerated but possible thing about Clinton, ok; that's informative about Clinton in a way, but misleadingly put, what's going on?; vote for Trump - say what!? Are you nuts?

Yes.

 

I'll see one actress you have the hots for and raise you 50 GOP foreign policy experts:
===================================
50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’
By DAVID E. SANGER and MAGGIE HABERMAN
AUG. 8, 2016

Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states. . . . .

Yet perhaps most striking about the letter is the degree to which it echoes Mrs. Clinton’s main argument about her rival: that his temperament makes him unsuitable for the job, and that he should not be entrusted with the control of nuclear weapons.

“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood,” the letter says. “He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
===========================================
So: One actress you think is "sexy" refuses to vote for Hillary and 50 GOP foreign policy experts refuse to vote for Trump because he is dangerously unqualified - then 1 for Trump and 50 for Hillary. (Or loss of opposing votes, which has the same effect.)

 

So do you likewise believe Trump's rhetoric carries no serious threat because it is "implausible", or that there is comparative safety in his having no visible (and therefore accountable) policy (his racist and violent rhetoric being "implausible", therefore no clue) while championing and empowering the Republican core voter - a collection of people we know to be bigoted, violent, and easily manipulated?

If you recall, one of the major and seriously posited arguments in favor of allowing W&Cheney warmaking powers against Saddam was that an actual invasion and full scale war was too obviously risky and stupid to be plausible. No joke: a fair number of the Congressmen who voted for that Act later defended their vote on essentially those grounds - that no reasonable person would have predicted he would actually do what he did.

Let's call this the "Sarandon Defense".

 

Remember who started building "The Wall" 22 years ago?
Remember that Trump went to meet and talk with Enrique Peña Nieto who also wants a stronger border?

Our collective quadrennial rhetorical insanity aside: "The Wall" is just a symbol which will never reach from sea to sea.

I am continually baffled as to why anyone in their right mind would support a known warmonger when all that is left in their/her wake is chaos and lots of dead bodies and wasted trillions of your tax dollars and every last penny that they can borrow.
A vote for HRC is a vote for immorality, death, pain and suffering of people who never meant us any harm. So, go ahead, vote for HRC, then start building your bunker-----------I assure you that she has several at her disposal. She most likely deplores you. once she has your vote, then you no longer matter.

 

I'm continually amazed people believe this kind of demagoguery.

 

That's a great response that entirely dodges the question of Republicans and the southern strategy.

So I guess you are just straight up racist like wellwisher.

 

Joe:
How much blood do you want on your hands?

 

PhysBang:
Look at the numbers:
Under Democrats Kennedy and Johnson(McNamara) we went from 900 to over 542,000 pairs of "boots on the ground"(not counting the cia). Most of those "boots were worn by people who came from poor families, and a higher percentage that of the U.S. population were black. So that war was racist and owned by the Democrats.
..........................................
Your "southern strategy is a myth created by democrats to besmirch republicans as "racists".

Liberals will never tire of calling conservatives racist, because it’s always a show-stopper, a way of cutting off further debate on any issue where a liberal is likely to lose. So don’t expect it to go away any time soon.
In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” . . .

But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson’s 52 percent. He carried most of the “peripheral South” — Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida — and made inroads in the “Deep South,” almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

In 1956, Eisenhower became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a plurality of the vote in the South, 49.8 percent to 48.9 percent. He once again carried the peripheral South, but also took Louisiana with 53 percent of the vote. He won nearly 40 percent of the vote in Alabama. This is all the more jarring when you realize that the Brown v. Board decision was handed down in the interim, that the administration had appointed the chief justice who wrote the decision, and that the administration had opposed the school board.

 

Bells:
Trump ain't gotta build no stinking wall.
it already exists, it's largely symbolic, and it's worthless as tits on a boar.
Here is a picture of part of it--------------------notice any problems?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But, wait, there's more:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What a ridiculous waste:
Meanwhile:
At the federal courthouse, Ignacio Sarabia asks the magistrate judge, Jacqueline Rateau, if he can explain why he crossed the international boundary between the two countries without authorization. He has already pleaded guilty to the federal misdemeanor commonly known as “illegal entry” and is about to receive a prison sentence. On either side of him are eight men in the same predicament, all still sunburned, all in the same ripped, soiled clothes they were wearing when arrested in the Arizona desert by agents of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Once again, the zero tolerance border enforcement program known as Operation Streamline has unfolded just as it always does here in Tucson, Arizona. Close to 60 people have already approached the judge in groups of seven or eight, their heads bowed submissively, their bodies weighed down by shackles and chains around wrists, waists, and ankles. The judge has handed out the requisite prison sentences in quick succession -- 180 days, 60 days, 90 days, 30 days.

On and on it goes, day-in, day-out. Like so many meals served in fast-food restaurants, 750,000 prison sentences of this sort have been handed down since Operation Streamline was launched in 2005. This mass prosecution of undocumented border crossers has become so much the norm that onereport concluded it is now a “driving force in mass incarceration” in the United States. Yet it is but a single program among many overseen by the massive U.S. border enforcement and incarceration regime ...
Enrique Peña Nieto also wants a more secure border, and will invest money and manpower to help make that a reality. He ain't sanguine about the guns and money heading south, not the traffic of non Mexicans traveling through Mexico enroute to the usa.

I ain't no Cristo fan.
one more:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These guys voted for that wall.

 

A fence is not a wall and a wall is not a fence... oops.

And there's a difference between fencing off sections of the wall and building the great Wall of America from ocean to ocean as The Donald advocates.

 

Hey:
as/re the wall and fence:
I didn't build the goddamned thing. I wouldn't build the goddamned thing.
Mostly, it just interferes with the continuity of wildlife habitats.

And, as Enrique Peña Nieto stated after the meeting with Trump, there is currently negative immigration of Mexicans to the USA.(more are moving back to Mexico than are moving north to the USA)
Whereupon, Trump stated that "we must keep jobs in this hemisphere". (If Mexico loses jobs to China etc...etc... then maybe more Mexicans will look for jobs here?)

The best thing that we could do for our southern neighbors would be to stop the export of guns to the mexican criminals and legalize drugs here which would cut the legs out from under the mexican drug cartels.

But, is anyone talking about that? (aside from Nieto)

 

But wait, there's more:

 

Well, that's what we get for repeatedly buckling and backing conservative immigration schemes. When we look at what you're complaining about, we got here trying it the conservative way. You know, like building futile sections of fence as a feelgood concession to people for whom it's all about white supremacism.

The way I see it, a person is either okay with this sort of racist fraud or not, and if one is willing to put someone like Donald Trump in the White House, we have our answer.

 

Symbolic
Symbolism
Rhetorical symbolism
Rhetoric

Listen to any politician during the election cycle, and get a full dose of hyperbole (an accepted part of rhetoric).
Your "racist" wall was started by Bill Clinton. (whose Carville referred to people as "trash")
It is worthless as tits on a boar, and will forever remain so.
Remember the maginot line?
It too was worthless. (but boy did it feel good to build it)

Trust me on this.
It is an rhetorical wall. It will never be complete from sea to sea.
And even if it is, there is always swimming, rowboats, etc...

 

I agree. And yet you support the guy who wants to pursue an even more ridiculous waste. What a ridiculous stance.

==============
Clinton Says U.S. Feeds Mexico Drug Trade
By MARK LANDLER
MARCH 25, 2009

MEXICO CITY — Seeking to ease a cross-border relationship strained by drug trafficking, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived here Wednesday and offered the clearest acknowledgment yet from an Obama administration official of the role the United States plays in the violent narcotics trade in Mexico.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” Mrs. Clinton said, using unusually blunt language. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”
===============
Clinton Would Reschedule Pot, She Says
By Alex Garofalo @Ja9GarofaloTV On 08/12/16 AT 10:14 AM

Hillary Clinton says that as president she would support decriminalizing marijuana.
===============