The following snippet is from a few days ago. You can look up the source if you like. It's not important. Warren is simply another useful tool lying on behalf of her (((masters))).
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans of “making hate OK” as she campaigned for Hillary Clinton on Saturday.
“We’re here to say hate is not OK,” Warren told a crowd of roughly 500 volunteers packed inside a New Hampshire campaign office.
I don't disagree with her that Trump is opening the door to make hate OK. But that itself is fine; it's a more rational attitude towards those who want to exterminate you than the rather childish one advocated by that carpenter from Nazareth. And we could have used a little more of it from the man himself during Tuesday night's debate. He seemed more restrained than usual, and failed to hit her specifically in ways that he could have. A friend of mine has a good take on this:
I am thinking that Trump might find it hard to walk the middle line between being controlled ('presidential') OR flamboyant. When the flamboyance is controlled maybe his sharp thinking is also controlled. Maybe this IS new territory for him in maintaining his brain power while being more smooth.
Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, and this is reason enough to support him. I have had my doubts, wondering if the Trump phenomenon wasn't some ultra-sophisticated psy-op brought to us by the usual Skypes. I don't think so now. He was in their arena last night, and the hostility directed towards him was palpable, and you know that he himself felt it.
He was under enormous pressure, and it was written on his face. By contrast, Clinton seemed comfortable and relaxed, and her shit-grin told the audience that she has lots of experience in this machinery, and that she knows that (((they)) are watching her back.
She know she's going to get there, if they have to drag her the final few steps.
Trump was right to constantly hammer home what a mess the country is in, and that it's insider politicians like Clinton who have gotten us there. He started out this way and returned to it throughout the debate, but I fear that it will be lost on many viewers. I know a lot of Trumpaphobes and I believe I have a somewhat accurate view of how they think about this.
Many people like Clinton because she is an experienced political hack. The idea of an outsider, someone who isn't "smooth" and "Presidential" in the way we've become accustomed to, is a terrifying one to them. Decline doesn't feel so bad to them if it's managed at a nice steady rate. The jolt that we might experience from someone who accelerates the decline -- he will have that unstable, egotistical finger on the nuclear button, after all -- or who might actually reverse it, is just too scary to contemplate.
Many of the questions asked by Lester Holt were chosen specifically to favor Clinton, like the opening one that claimed the country has experienced growing "prosperity in the last 6 years" but still has a big problem with "income inequality." Of course income inequality is huge, but this question is tailor-made for Clinton, as representing the incumbent President (who brought us "prosperity"!) and as someone running on a "tax the rich" platform.
It should be remembered that Clinton doesn't care a whit about poor people, or the working class, or blacks for that matter, and all of them will continue to lose if she continues the Obama/Skype agenda. Everything she says in a public capacity is either a lie or used in support of a lie.
Here are other question topics I wrote down that were chosen to favor Clinton's position or attack Trump's:
- What can we do about race relations?
- When will you release your tax returns?
- Hilary would be first woman President. Why did you say "she doesn't have the look?"
- What do we do about "homegrown terrorists" (as opposed to immigrant criminals)?
- Will you support the election outcome as the will of the voters?
In a profoundly corrupt and dishonest political system, like the one we have, in which the very premises of the issues discussed are fake, then a profoundly corrupt and dishonest person with a fake persona is greatly advantaged over someone who, however self-serving his business practices may have been at times, genuinely loves his country and would like to serve on behalf of the interests of its people. I believe he does want to "make America great again," and if he tries to do that, I don't care how big his ego is, nor how many disgruntled contractors have complaints about him, or which Pennsylvania Avenue address is his domicile.
People who are still unclear at this point about who is the better candidate probably aren't going to be moved by any debate, and they won't dare to watch one of his speeches or examine his political platform. Such people don't want a great country, and don't in fact deserve one. They are happy to be in a declining society, and to call it progress. It's progress because we had a "black" President, then we'll have a woman, then maybe a gay or a transgender, and then a Muslim. That is their very definition of progress; it's called "inclusiveness," but it's meant of course to exclude whites. Trump may not explicitly be pro-white, but he is not explicitly or implicitly anti-white. And that is just not OK.
I would like Trump, in the final two debates, to release his inner hater. I want to see him openly challenge, rather than merely sidestep, the premises of some of the loaded questions aimed at him. He should open and invite the audience to look into Clinton's rather expansive closet of skeletons -- and I'm not being entirely figurative here. If he asks me again for advice, via email, that's what I'm going to tell him.
But, I'm guessing he doesn't need my advice. He has shown a canny ability during 2016 to adjust and adapt to this game that is highly rigged against him, and last night was a bit of a "draw" -- he certainly didn't lose. He'll figure it out. Round 2 is on a Sunday -- October 9 in St. Louis.