Author Topic: Trump is a rude, crude, lewd dude (Read 17686 times)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 07, 2016, 06:45:51 PM »

The Top Campaign Donor is George Soros

Daily Stormer

Andrew Anglin

Breitbart:

The bipartisan Open Secrets blog reported that a small number of Americans, led by George Soros, donated $100 million to Presidential Super PACs in the second half of 2015.

Federal Election Commission filings of 21 different Super PACs supporting the top 13 major party candidates show “29 individuals or organizations who gave $1 million or more” for a total of $99.4 million collected in a six-month period. Adding in the 13 campaign committees, to total raised in the second half of 2015 was $260 million.

Democrat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pocketed the largest individual single Super PAC donation with a $6 million coming from liberal billionaire George Soros’ ‘Priorities USA Action.’

Other top 10 individual donors to Priorities USA Action to help Hillary Clinton included: $3 million from Haim Saban, $1.6 million from Laure Woods, and $1.5 million from Donald Sussman.

Soros also gave $2 million to another Super PAC backing Clinton called American Bridge.

The largest individual contributor to a Republican was hedge fund manager Paul Singer who endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in November and made a $2.5 million contribution to Conservative Solutions PAC. Singer recruited $3.5 million from two billionaire friends: Kenneth C. Griffin and Cliff Asness, who often give to the same candidates as Singer.

Clinton’s led all candidates by raising a total of $115.6 million in total campaign and Super PAC donations in 2015, about the same as her total in 2007.

Paul Singer is also – obviously – a Jew.

All the top donors for all these people are Jews, as we cover regularly.

Trump is right in pointing out that voters do not appear to appreciate the fact that he is self-funding. If they did appreciate that, both left and right would be voting for him. It is possibly the most important fact ever. We have a situation here where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, which is a terrible situation whatever the details, but it’s made even more terrible by the fact that the highest bidders are all Jews.

This is a complete disaster.

Share

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 07, 2016, 07:34:12 PM »

For the voters of Ted Cruz, BEWARE:

Ron Paul: Cruz not a Libertarian. He's owned by Goldman Sachs

Infowars

Ted Cruz isn’t a free-market libertarian, Ron Paul warned his son’s former supporters on Friday.

“You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz — they think he’s for the free market, and [in reality] he’s owned by Goldman Sachs,” he said of the Texas senator on Fox Business’ Varney & Company. “I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with Cruz and Trump or any of them so I just don’t think there is much picking.”

“It’s hard to find anybody — since Rand is out of it — anybody that would take a libertarian position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy.”

Paul also warned that Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders wasn’t much better during a Mises Institute conference on Jan. 30.

“[Socialists] will not listen to the argument that there’s a difference between somebody getting bailed out by the Federal Reserve… versus somebody who produces a good product and we [the People] vote them their money [because] they haven’t cheated, stolen or given us a bad product,” he said. “I think it’s sort of an envy and resentment and I’ve talked to them but I have to tell you, I haven’t converted many die-hard progressives.”

“Some progressives, if you watch them on the Internet, will have really close agreements and might be talk about the same issues, but boy they don’t want you to even introduce the notion that libertarians are with them on this because they’re terrified we might encroach on their power to redistribute wealth [by force].”







RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #77 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:42:07 AM »

Ted Cruz is an Evangelical Protestant and he made this statement:
"If you do not stand for Israel. We do not stand with you".
We have to much Jєωιѕн control and if it is not broken up will
destroy this country and the world.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #78 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:53:21 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: MaterDominici

]There's an abortion issue at the US Supreme court right now. Which of the candidates has made a statement to the court or to the public on the issue?

I don't know. Cruz? I said that Cruz is more solidly pro-life than Trump.

Cruz and Rubio

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/03/cruz-and-rubio-ask-supreme-court-to-uphold-texas-law-saving-10000-babies-from-abortion/

roscoe · « **Reply #79 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:45:14 AM »

Larry Nichols & (or) Wayne Madsen are claiming that Rubio & Cruz are both ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs... :reporter:

roscoe · « **Reply #80 on:** February 11, 2016, 05:49:44 PM »

On O' Reilly yesterday Trump referred to the Billary as 'evil'. O'R tried desparetly(sp?) to get him to take it back but he wouldn't. :roll-laugh1:

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #81 on:** February 11, 2016, 10:49:37 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

On O' Reilly yesterday Trump referred to the Billary as 'evil'. O'R tried desparetly(sp?) to get him to take it back but he wouldn't. :roll-laugh1:

At lease the Republicans will not be doling out super delegates like
the Democrats did for Hillary in the New Hampshire Primary.
They count delegates not votes at the Conventions.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #82 on:** February 12, 2016, 04:56:41 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

Larry Nichols & (or) Wayne Madsen are claiming that Rubio & Cruz are both ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs... :reporter:

You think?

Here's Rubio attempting to hug his wife:

Here's a description of what's going on in the photo above, courtesy of a poster over at Heartiste:

Quote

Very interesting Rubio photo, Corey. How many of the diseases of modernism can we see in just this one photo? He has fag-face and at the same time he has the face of a scheming jew. And who dresses like that?

The woman is completely repulsed by him but she also appears to be an anorexic and a bulimic, the facial thinness in conjunction with the nasal-labial lines being indications of the poor condition of her intestinal flora, which bring on those conditions and other “mental” issues. She won’t hug him but clutches the phone, which she may not be able to put down as the skin of her palm has possibly grown around it.

Note the star of david pattern near the hem of her dress.

The hair indicates depression. She is confused. What color should her hair be and how should it be styled? She can’t decide and won’t listen to advice. So she just lets it grow out, like sidewalk grass outside a derelict building.

Two very unhappy, confused modern people.

I'd say it's a spot-on description. Then, there's this photo from the same website. The folks were discussing it in the comments section:

First, here's a breakdown of the above photo by a guy, funnily enough, named Mel Gibson:

Quote

Way too much makeup and photoshopped skin on the subjects, shirts too ironed and pressed, each picture and plant perfectly arranged in the background, and the lighting excellent. This looks exactly like a stock photo you’d see in a doctor’s office magazine.

But go deeper – aside from his hilarious balding, this is a couple the Hivemind wants you to see. A pretty blonde, powerful with her hands in her pockets and by standing in front to lead, while her brownish husband hangs on her shoulder, his smile large like a submissive chimpanzee. He’s not the focus.

Go even deeper – her smile betrays her. She’s not happy. She’s unfulfilled. She’s forcing it; it’s fake. And him, even if you didn’t know him as Marco the Robot, something is off. I can’t quite point it out – maybe it’s my instinct of revulsion for a man who leans in like that and allows his woman to BE like that. I don’t know. It’s like he’s stuck in the Uncanny Valley.

Good eye, Mel. A funny guy called Captain Obvious really made me chuckle, when he termed the people who push this phenomenon of metrosɛҳuąƖ appeal as the Gl0b0-H0m0 Infantilization Agenda.

Then, there was mendo's observation:

Quote

He doesn’t have his arm around her waist, or even at the small of her back. Instead, it’s resting on her shoulder, in a “let me just leave this here for a sec” rather than the ownership quality of grabbing hold of her and saying “you’re mine.”

Trump almost always has his arm around Melania’s waist. Or just around her body. Or holding her hand by his side.

Plenty of other keen observations in that comment thread. But returning to the main point: I must admit, I am suspicious, and I'm of the same mind as Madsen and Nichols.

OHCA · « **Reply #83 on:** February 12, 2016, 03:33:34 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: roscoe
Larry Nichols & (or) Wayne Madsen are claiming that Rubio & Cruz are both ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs... :reporter:

You think?

Here's Rubio attempting to hug his wife:

Here's a description of what's going on in the photo above, courtesy of a poster over at Heartiste:

Quote

Very interesting Rubio photo, Corey. How many of the diseases of modernism can we see in just this one photo? He has fag-face and at the same time he has the face of a scheming jew. And who dresses like that?

The woman is completely repulsed by him but she also appears to be an anorexic and a bulimic, the facial thinness in conjunction with the nasal-labial lines being indications of the poor condition of her intestinal flora, which bring on those conditions and other “mental” issues. She won’t hug him but clutches the phone, which she may not be able to put down as the skin of her palm has possibly grown around it.

Note the star of david pattern near the hem of her dress.

The hair indicates depression. She is confused. What color should her hair be and how should it be styled? She can’t decide and won’t listen to advice. So she just lets it grow out, like sidewalk grass outside a derelict building.

Two very unhappy, confused modern people.

I'd say it's a spot-on description. Then, there's this photo from the same website. The folks were discussing it in the comments section:

First, here's a breakdown of the above photo by a guy, funnily enough, named Mel Gibson:

Quote
Way too much makeup and photoshopped skin on the subjects, shirts too ironed and pressed, each picture and plant perfectly arranged in the background, and the lighting excellent. This looks exactly like a stock photo you’d see in a doctor’s office magazine.

But go deeper – aside from his hilarious balding, this is a couple the Hivemind wants you to see. A pretty blonde, powerful with her hands in her pockets and by standing in front to lead, while her brownish husband hangs on her shoulder, his smile large like a submissive chimpanzee. He’s not the focus.

Go even deeper – her smile betrays her. She’s not happy. She’s unfulfilled. She’s forcing it; it’s fake. And him, even if you didn’t know him as Marco the Robot, something is off. I can’t quite point it out – maybe it’s my instinct of revulsion for a man who leans in like that and allows his woman to BE like that. I don’t know. It’s like he’s stuck in the Uncanny Valley.

Good eye, Mel. A funny guy called Captain Obvious really made me chuckle, when he termed the people who push this phenomenon of metrosɛҳuąƖ appeal as the Gl0b0-H0m0 Infantilization Agenda.

Then, there was mendo's observation:

Quote
He doesn’t have his arm around her waist, or even at the small of her back. Instead, it’s resting on her shoulder, in a “let me just leave this here for a sec” rather than the ownership quality of grabbing hold of her and saying “you’re mine.”

Trump almost always has his arm around Melania’s waist. Or just around her body. Or holding her hand by his side.

Plenty of other keen observations in that comment thread. But returning to the main point: I must admit, I am suspicious, and I'm of the same mind as Madsen and Nichols.

As to the bottom pic, he is insecurely brandishing his wedding band. Also, when did it become not rude to have your hands in your pockets.

Rubio is a judaized wetback fαɢɢօt. The NWO will be fully behind him as soon as Bush drops out. The Bushes will probably even endorse him.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #84 on:** February 12, 2016, 05:04:04 PM »

So Rubio hugs his wife in the first photo (the one where she isn't wearing any wedding ring but clutches her phone) and he gets criticized for doing it wrong, then in the second photo he's criticized for not hugging her at all. Whether he hugs or doesn't, he can't win.

I'm lost as to which we're supposed to think is worse: this perceived weak image of Rubio or the alleged crudeness, rudeness and lewdness of Trump?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #85 on:** February 12, 2016, 07:05:40 PM »

I understand that a good number of Catholics fall into the trap of ignoring the laws of charity when talking about public figures, but I think the post by Laramie is over the top.

It's one thing to say someone is controlled by Jews because he has Jєωιѕн donors or has appeared for photo ops with Jєωιѕн leaders, etc. Those are pieces of evidence which support your assertion.

Or, you might accuse someone who supports a sodomite agenda of being a sodomite himself. That's a piece of evidence that would fit your proposed conclusion.

But, here we have a man being accused of one of the four sins which cries out to heaven for vengeance because he's not sufficiently photogenic?? Come on, guys. At least pull together a scrap of remote evidence before you accuse a man of such a heinous sin.

My head pretty much completely exploded when you say Rubio's photos with his wife should be more like how Trump poses with the woman with whom he's committing adultery!

MaterDominici · « **Reply #86 on:** February 12, 2016, 07:13:26 PM »

Perspective:

Quote

...as recently as the 1960s, the electorate would not accept a divorced and remarried candidate. In 1963, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s bid for the 1964 Republican nomination effectively ended when he divorced his wife and married Margaretta “Happy” Murphy, herself divorced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/for-gop-presidential-candidates-rules-to-love-by/2011/12/12/gIQAdHVwyO_story.html

Even that article has dated itself because it was written in 2011 and said the following which no longer seems to be true:

Quote

Rule 3. Don’t have an affair.

Extramarital affairs, especially those uncovered in the course of a campaign, are still a problem with American voters. Cain, who was polling well in the GOP race this fall, saw his campaign falter because of sɛҳuąƖ harassment allegations. But he ultimately suspended it because of an alleged extramarital affair.

That it was charges of an affair, rather than of harassment, that delivered the knock-out punch fits with what we know about public opinion. While attitudes toward sɛҳuąƖ harassment are still in flux, Americans are strongly against extramarital sex.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #87 on:** February 12, 2016, 07:38:30 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

I understand that a good number of Catholics fall into the trap of ignoring the laws of charity when talking about public figures, but I think the post by Laramie is over the top.

It's one thing to say someone is controlled by Jews because he has Jєωιѕн donors or has appeared for photo ops with Jєωιѕн leaders, etc. Those are pieces of evidence which lead support your assertion.

Or, you might accuse someone who supports a sodomite agenda of being a sodomite himself. That's a piece of evidence that would fit your proposed conclusion.

But, here we have a man being accused of one of the four sins which cries out to heaven for vengeance because he's not sufficiently photogenic?? Come on, guys. At least pull together a scrap of remote evidence before you accuse a man of such a heinous sin.

My head pretty much completely exploded when you say Rubio's photos with his wife should be more like how Trump poses with the woman with whom he's committing adultery!

I haven't accused the man of anything, though I've stated I'm suspicious.

The gαydar goes off when I see this guy.

The metrosɛҳuąƖ look is a product of Gl0b0 H0m0!

PG · « **Reply #88 on:** February 12, 2016, 10:21:00 PM »

PG · « **Reply #89 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:44:14 PM »

Here is bill donahue of the catholic league talking about trump and his language -

http://www.newsmax.com/BillDonohue/trump-election-vote/2016/02/10/id/713649/