Donald roasts Hillary roasts Donald

At the AL Smith charity dinner in New York Donald Trump mostly attacked Hillary Clinton, sometimes to boos.

Clinton returned fire.

Leave a comment

34 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  21st October 2016

    Donald blew it..lol. No doubt his script writer will be looking for another job. Crikey, by the look on Hillary’s face my bet is Bill’s already ringing around to see which asset is available put our Trumpy in a body bag.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  21st October 2016

      My congratulations on sitting through it; I turned off when it seemed that the acknowlegements were going on forever. “Where’s ……’ Oh, there he is, sitting next but one to me. DT sounded as if he had overdosed on Prozac or been hitting the brandy.

      I bet that even those who were there were saying ‘Oh, get ON with it !!!’ under their breaths when he was on. How long did the poor things have to sit through this twaddle ?

      She sounded much cleverer, and her laughter seemed genuine. That is a really good colour for her.

      Reply
      • Pete Kane

         /  21st October 2016

        Gosh, it’s amazing to do so just one day after the debate. I was going to say almost cringe worthy so, but maybe as soon as possible is the best time.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  21st October 2016

          What a silly tart Sarah Palin seems.

          Her idea that if God didn’t intend people to eat animals, they wouldn’t be made of meat is beyond daft, even if it might have been intended to be funny.

          By that logic, it’s all right to eat people, who are also made of meat. Her bum-crawling attitude to DT is sick-making.

          If the election is going to be rigged, as he claims,in the unlikely event of DT winning he’d have some explaining to do.

          I have just been reading about the extreme rarity of cases of election fraud; it just couldn’t happen on a scale to make any difference.

          Reply
          • Pete Kane

             /  21st October 2016

            Sarah Palin silly – you know that may be YNZs first totally uncontested political view.

            Reply
      • Gezza

         /  21st October 2016

        Well, the acknowledgements didn’t go on for all that long. And several were actually part of the ‘roast’, because they used to support him & now don’t. Couldn’t see the point of watching all of Hillary’s roast without watching all of Donald’s, Kitty.

        The laughter from both of them to me seemed just as genuine, and just as forced, depending on how genuinely amusing, vs how close to the bone (i.e. the truth), some of the ‘jokes’ were.

        Best joke of the lot, & and which got the biggest laughs of all, imo, was from Donald, about how biased the media is:

        “Michelle Obama gives a speech and everyone loves it, it’s fantastic. They think she’s absolutely great.

        My wife Melania gives THE EXACT SAME SPEECH … and people get ON her case! … And I … don’t … get it!” 😄

        I don’t think Melania knew it was coming, but I’m pretty sure he’ll explain it & make it up to her later.

        I think those were really good colours for Donald too. The shirt went well with his teeth, and the tie went well with his hair. And the black jacket beautifully off set the impressive superstructure of the lady iin the red gown with the plunging neckline behind him.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  21st October 2016

          I read the highlights (sic) so didn’t have to listen to all the rest. His were mostly rather silly and unwitty. He hasn’t the skill of delivery that can make things seem witty, he lacks the timing and lightness of touch. He seems to be reciting them rather than being spontaneous, whereas she comes across much better in this respect.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  21st October 2016

            Both of them seemed no less or more scripted to me than the other tbh. Do you think it’s possible you might be experiencing a little confirmation bias? One can NOT properly evaluate stand up humour without viewing the delivery. So I rate your evaluation of Trump’s performance as, frankly, worthless.

            In any case, the lady in the plunging necklined red gown behind both of them when they did their deliveries, in my opinion anyway, was the standout winner.

            Reply
  2. Pete Kane

     /  21st October 2016

    So for later in the day – is this a yes or no?
    “Professor’s ‘primary model’ says Trump will win the election – FishTank”
    While most polls show Hillary Clinton comfortably ahead of Donald Trump, some pollsters are worried that not enough people are participating in these polls for there to be a representative sample size. Professor Helmut Norpoth, of Stony Brook University, joins RT America’s Lindsay France in the FishTank and says not enough people actually answer their phones when pollsters call, and also explains that his method for predicting presidential winners has worked in every election the past 100 years except for the 1960 election. He believes Trump has an 87 percent chance of winning the popular vote.

    Reply
    • That’s not how poll aggregators like Real Clear Politics and Five Thirty Eight see it. Most polls (there are some exceptions) have show a handy lead for Clinton. While most polls could be a way off the mark the odds are well against Trump with no sign of him turning things around.

      Also reported to be against Trump is his lack of organisation around the states and the lack of help he is getting from the Republican Party, who are concentrating on trying to save their Senate and House majorities.

      Reply
      • Pete Kane

         /  21st October 2016

        And your second par. actually sums up how it’s run in reality – and probably was always how a lot of it was going to be.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st October 2016

        Here are the latest three days. I wouldn’t think Clinton could be too comfortable with the trend:

        Thursday
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 44, Trump 44 Tie
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 41 Clinton +2
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 40, Trump 43, Johnson 6, Stein 3 Trump +3
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 40, Trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 5 Trump +1

        Wednesday
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 44, Trump 41 Clinton +3
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 44, Trump 44 Tie
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Trump 44 Clinton +6
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 6, Stein 2 Clinton +4
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Tracking Clinton 40, Trump 41, Johnson 8, Stein 6 Trump +1
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 47, Trump 40, Johnson 7, Stein 1 Clinton +7
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Bloomberg Clinton 47, Trump 38, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +9
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Economist/YouGov Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Clinton +4

        Tuesday
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 49, Trump 42 Clinton +7
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Boston Globe Clinton 46, Trump 36, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +10
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein FOX News Clinton 45, Trump 39, Johnson 5, Stein 3 Clinton +6
        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/SM Clinton 46, Trump 40, Johnson 8, Stein 4 Clinton +6

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  21st October 2016

        According to the professor online polls are a new fangled thing. This election may be a good indicator for its use in future.

        Reply
    • Corky

       /  21st October 2016

      This is what my gut and brain are telling me. I’ve been thinking surely Americans aren’t that dumb.

      We have two disliked candidates. Both are capable of bringing America down. Either one will probably have to face civil unrest if elected given their polarising personalities and support base. One is sly and manipulative and may indirectly be a murderer, but knows the ropes of office The other is a groping loud mouth arrogant buffoon whose untested in office, but is offering the biggest shake-up in US political history. A new direction.

      Unlike Parti Z, I’m no intellectual giant, just your average intelligent person. Surely most Americans are like me. So common sense tells me Trump is the man. Trump summed it up well when addressing blacks: ” what the hell have you got to lose?”

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  21st October 2016

        Everything.

        I don’t believe that the Clintons are ‘indirect murderers’ as this hoary old urban myth has been debunked so many times.

        Although the Clinton Foundation was involved in Haiti, it was as a charity and it did not profit.

        DT’s charity spends money on things like huge portraits of him. Brian Tamaki on steroids. Destiny has no crosses or any other religious symbols, but it does have huge photos of the Tamakis on all the walls.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  21st October 2016

          Good to see you are awake.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  21st October 2016

            I wouldn’t have been had I been there for DT’s speech-not after the first minute (the minutes must have seemed like dog minutes)

            Reply
  3. Klik Bate

     /  21st October 2016

    And they’re worried about trusting ‘THE DONALD’ with the Nuclear Codes ❗

    Reply
    • That’s been widely debunked.

      “During a presidential debate Hillary Clinton mentioned a four-minute response window for launching missiles during a nuclear attack, but that information wasn’t secret.”

      http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

      5 August 2016 Foreign Policy magazine published an article about that very subject with a subhead that openly proclaimed it:

      Reply
      • Klik Bate

         /  21st October 2016

        C’monl PG…..’Snopes’ is laughable ❗ Nothing more than a pack of left leaning propagandists, quick to dismiss anything FACTUAL.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st October 2016

        I thought Clinton said the missiles would launch within four minutes of the President giving the order. That is not the same as a response window?

        Reply
      • Klik Bate

         /  21st October 2016

        Hey PG – so why remove the Hillary’s actual tweet from my original post?

        Reply
        • Klik Bate

           /  21st October 2016

          Aha – back to normal XD There you go Alan, exactly as you thought.

          Reply
        • I didn’t touch your comment.

          Reply
          • Klik Bate

             /  21st October 2016

            OK cheers for that PG – there must be a ‘gremlin’ in the system at my end? A number of witty comments I responded with to Kitty C. over the last few days just seemed to disappear for some unknown reason 😡

            Reply
  4. Kitty Catkin

     /  21st October 2016

    Then there was the time when some CIA men were playing computer games and were only just stopped in time…they had accidentally pressed the wrong button and the nuclear holocaust was seconds away. This terrifying scenario has happened several times, as I have heard of blokes from other organisations doing the same thing.

    Reply
  5. Kitty Catkin

     /  21st October 2016

    I would guess that the President gives the final order, but that they can’t just say ‘Oh, what the hell, I’m going to pick up the phone and start a nuclear war-I can, I’m the President.’

    Reply
  6. lurcher1948

     /  21st October 2016
    Reply
  7. patupaiarehe

     /  21st October 2016

    Reply
  8. patupaiarehe

     /  21st October 2016

    Reply
  9. From HRC “Clinton stresses that the exchanges were hacked by a group conspiring with the Russian government seeking to hurt her campaign and help Trump. While they’ve refused to confirm the veracity of the emails, they haven’t disavowed them.”

    Now read the first bit again “Clinton stresses that the exchanges were hacked by a group…etc” If that is not a confirmation that the exchanges did occur, regardless of who they conspired with, what further evidence do you need?

    If Clinton is chosen as President, then I will know that the US is in the grasp of corrupt big money.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: