September 14, 2016 1:25 PM
HomePresidential PoliticsCharlie Speaks The Truth

Charlie Speaks The Truth

By  Presidential Politics  7 Comments

Veteran politicos tell me often, “enjoy this election because you’ll never see another like it.” I’m not enjoying it, but it proves that America has never seen an election quite like Clinton v. Trump.

Charlie, our Dear Leader, went on a bit of a tweet storm over partisan attacks waged against him from hypocritical Democrats. It’s worth a read. He raises several important points plaguing Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between. You can read the tweets in order below the jump.

About Author

Will Kremer

Will is an active member of the Georgia Republican grassroots. He previously served as Chairman of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, 2nd Vice Chairman of the 7th District Republican Party, and Treasurer of the Forsyth County Republican Party. Promise Land = Forsyth County.

7 Comments
  1. edatlanta

    Wait.

    Are Dems now saying that questioning a POTUS nominee is unpatriotic?

    Like, have they forgotten all the tripe around criticizing W in 04? Good Lord.

  2. David C

    It’s nice to know these super convenient strawmen are super conveniently outraged at Charlie in such a way as to inspire a tweet storm. Especially about all those lies and deception, the substance or evidence of which goes super conveniently uncited by Charlie. As usual, Mr. Harper plays the principled dissident Republican right up until the partisan rubber meets the road.

  3. Saltycracker

    Charlie ain’t seen nothing yet until he tries to play fair and balanced on GApol by calling Hillary out and cleaning the place up.

  4. FreeDuck

    All due respect to Charlie, and not being privy to what set off the tweet storm… these two candidates are not “the two worst” in history. Yes, they are both unpopular, but one is a lifelong leader in her party with shit-tons (metric) of experience in governing and the other is a scammer salesman who has built a fortune by putting his name on other people’s money and who got the nomination by playing to the very worst elements of the Republican party (aka worst candidate in history). I get that they might seem equally terrible to a Republican who is forced to choose between Trump and any Democrat, but Clinton is very well qualified for the presidency and Trump is not — at least not in a democratic republic with separation of powers. Let’s not assume equivalence out of some misplaced sense of fairness or a desire to appear objective.

    All that said, yeah, people shouldn’t be jerks about it, though.

    • edatlanta

      Clinton lost Iowa to John Edwards after living there for two years and took a massive struggle to ward off a non-Democrat, socialist senator from Vermont with no track record.

      Oh, and only Democrats like her and not that much.

      Yeah. She’s terrible.

  5. Dave Bearse

    There’s plenty to criticize Clinton about. Some of what’s presented is presented as falsely equivalent, though I don’t know how much that applies to Charlie or not.

    Take Clinton pay for play vs Trump buying influence. Its a valid criticism that Clinton or state department employees meeting with contributors to the Clinton Foundation has the appearance of impropriety.

    Compare that with the Trump Foundation making an illegal $25,000 “charitable” contribution (that it was fined for) to the campaign of the Florida SOS, in between the SOS announcing she was considering investigating Trump U for fraud, and the SOS office announcing soon after receipt of the contribution that there would be no investigation. The timing of Trump’s contribution has the appearance of impropriety, more so than Clinton because Trump bragged much earlier in his campaign that he makes political contributions and receives access/favors. (2016 is certainly the year of GOP chickens coming home to roost!)

    The Trump Foundation then wrongly reported the payment was to a legitimate charity, not a political campaign. Honest mistake? Quite possible. Such a mistake occurring after an illegal contribution smacks of coverup though. Anyone else notice the media attention given to how an illegal political contribution incorrectly attributed to a real charity reflects on Trump’s competence, and particularly those good people that he hires and will rely on as President, given he’s a foreigh policy nincompoop? Neither did I.

    Transparency is a third layer to it all. There’s none with Trump not releasing his tax returns.

    Saying Clinton’s pay for play is the same as Trump’s buying influence with the info available is false equivalence. Sure the GOP crows an investigation will find something, but their fishing license expired a few years and three Benghazi investigations ago. FWIW I don’t support a Congressional investigation of Trump’s contribution to the Florida SOS.

    Clinton and Trump are equivalent in this matter just like Trump and Clinton are the two absolute worst candidates ever.

  6. Davo65

    Poor Charlie thinks he can have it both ways then takes his beef to Twitter just like Trump would.

Add a Comment