Decision 2016: Pantsuits or Lawsuits

nun-oct-twny-five013

This entry was posted in Nun Of The Above 2016-20. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Decision 2016: Pantsuits or Lawsuits

  1. Judith Lowry says:

    The cigar, nice touch.

  2. Gail Kraus says:

    R.L., the clasps for the royal cape… are those keep right road signs?

  3. Greg Goodknight says:

    Looks like folks are noticing now.

  4. Chris Peterson says:

    Gotta’ wonder: is it her gender, her political affiliation, her name, or a combination of all the above? ‘Cause W lost 22 MILLION emails, and there were 13 embassies and consulates attacked during his Presidency which left 80 people dead, and never a discouraging word was uttered in the press, or Congress.

    And the average voter only notices that which supports their preconceived notions, so there will be no noticeable change. Not to mention, for those who DO pay attention; this latest round of emails, via the Weiner connection, are from the computer of an aide who transferred them there to facilitate copying them at home, which means that they’re exactly the same emails that have already been studied for over a year. Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along; one week left, and the electorate has already decided.
    The Donald has become just another ugly footnote in our history, and that’s too bad, because this carnival barker has stolen a narrative of what would have been the winning argument in the hands of a credible candidate, opposing the weakest Democrat of my lifetime. (Minus the bigotry, misogyny, and the “wall”.)

  5. John Dough says:

    Chris, maybe the newly discovered emails are ones we have not seen yet because they were scrubbed off of the the computers examined by the FBI. That would be newsworthy would it not?

    • Chris Peterson says:

      In a world where the latest photo of Kim Kardashian’s ass is considered “newsworthy”, I suppose you’re right.
      I guess what I find curious, is that one of the two candidates for President has been investigated and scrutinized, both in public and private life, for over 30 years as no other person has in perhaps our entire history, (with no substantiated charges ever brought), and the other, who even his supporters admit has a past full of shady personal and business practices, been audited numerous times, filed for bankruptcy 4 times, is facing charges of rape, refuses to release either his tax returns or his medical records, has been the litigant in over 3,500 law suits for breach of contract, discrimination, sexual assault, etc., and proudly admits to paying zero taxes for the last two decades, is given a pass because “he’s the Donald.”

      So yeah, I suppose I find it amazing that some still hold out a twisted sense of hope that one candidates’ possible breach of email protocol will equate with the others’ life-long pursuit of all that society finds repugnant.

  6. John Dough says:

    Amazing. Your summary of the growing stream of revelations about one of the candidates pattern of behavior for the past several years is a “possible breach of email protocol”? Does none of the information coming to light bother you in any way?

    • Chris Peterson says:

      What you label “revelations” would be more accurately called speculation, as I have, to this date, seen no proof to back any of the allegations. Unnamed sources presented by Fox News, and accusations by the opposition, hardly constitute a fact-based analysis. (I suggest you try an experiment: write down only those crimes that Clinton has been convicted of and report back to us on your findings.)
      One candidate has a thick, occupational coating of slime, the other is literally swimming in a cesspool of shit of his own making. So, if you have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing that the everyone else is not privy to, please contact the FBI, Fox News, or the RNC, all of whom are desperately trying to pin something on her before time runs out on Trump’s failed campaign. (Although, accusations alone seem to work just fine on some.)
      Time’s a wastin’.

  7. John Dough says:

    How about we start our list with deleting emails that were the subject of a Congressional subpoena? Is that just speculation, or will you acknowledge that Congress did in fact issue a subpoena for the emails and those emails have in fact been deleted, scrubbed (with a cloth), or bleached with sophisticated software to permanently remove them. Does that fall under your definition of speculation?

  8. John Dough says:

    Entertaining clip Chris, thanks. It is indeed, unfortunate and embarrassing that the choices we have are between an apparent criminal and an obvious asshole. Which is least worst? For me, the answer lies in your question above about the content of the illegally deleted emails, and the answer to that will determine if HRC’s future home is in Lompoc or Supermax. The act of deleting evidence under Congressional subpoena is a crime that should be punished. The speculation is about how damning was the deleted evidence that she would rather face that crime, than the crimes discussed in the emails.

  9. Chris Peterson says:

    For the most part, I agree with your statement, although, if the actions of all politicians were made public, it’s very doubtful that there would be anyone left to run our government. Which, in itself, is a sad statement: that we either have corruption, or chaos.
    Too bad that Bob’s Nun of the Above isn’t a real option.

    Ah well.

  10. John Dough says:

    Thanks Chris, great discussion! I submit that the solution would be for the voters to be way less tolerant of BS from our electeds. If we were to scorn incompetence and punish corruption, politicians would quickly change to meet our standards. Instead, we reward dishonesty and incompetence with re-election. The voters of Washington DC elected Marion Barry after watching a video of him smoking crack! We get the government we deserve. We need to fix ourselves first, and as you pointed out above, Kim Kardashian’s ass is more important to far to many!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.