Anonymous

Hillary Clinton won’t show her speeches. Donald Trump won’t release his taxes. Neither of them come forward about their health. What’s next in the secrecy obsessed world of American presidential candidates?

25 thoughts on “Anonymous

  1. O’Bummer has set a pretty high bar on this one – he’s run the most secretive administration yet! Maybe we should apply black paint to the Presidential Palace and all those other old buildings in D.C. It would be much more appropriate given the state of the affairs of state.

      • Isn’t that cute? The pot is calling the milk bottle black. Here are your vocabulary builders for today:

        “Black out”

        “Black Budget”

        “Black hole”

        “Black ops”

        “Black list”

        “Black Ball”

    • @ CrazyH –

      I guess I’m just dense. I thought your use of the word was with reference to the last panel of the cartoon, which — with the exception of the text — is all black.

      • It’s just a racist double entendre. Racists are sneaky like that. It’s just like when DanD seemingly appropriately called Obama a “ho.” But we know it’s really because Obama is black!

      • I always get a kick out of you silly twits trying to defend yourselves.

        You remind me of myself when I was, oh, about nine or ten. A store clerk caught me walking out of the store with a candy bar in my pocket. I indignantly explained that I wasn’t trying to steal it, I’d just put it in my pocket to test whether it fit before I bought it.

        She didn’t believe me! Can you imagine that? Eventually, I figured out that lying when you’re caught red handed just makes you look even sillier.

        Maybe you & Dandy will figure that out some day, too.

  2. Two commentators on gocomics say they donated to Mr Rall’s fund to fight the LA Times, and, since they’ve paid, they want him to support the only qualified candidate, St Hillary, and stop supporting evil incarnate, AKA Trump.

    Of course, Mr Rall does NOT support Trump, but the Clintonbots say anyone who cannot reiterate the obvious fact that St Hillary is the best candidate for president the US has ever had is obviously a Trump supporter.

    Personally, I’d vote for a mug of beer (did I mention beer) before I’d vote for Secretary Redbeard or Trump. And if I’m allowed to vote this year, I WILL vote for a mug of beer!

    • You hit right upon the big objection I have to so many of HRC’s supporters. You are entitled to the opinion only after they OK for you. And if you try to argue, you are branded a misogynist, a sexist, etc.

      HRC presents herself as the people’s candidate, battle-tested, read to lead, etc. Look at how many times she’s shot herself in the foot. NO competent leader makes that many missteps.

      Trump? I know he’ll get thrown out of the White House within six months. HRC? The Republicans will never let her go. She’s the perfect WMD to use against the Democratic Party. They’ll cripple anything she actually bothers trying to do, and by the midterms it’ll 70 senate seats for the Republicans and a comparable percentage in the House. Then, it’s whoever the Republicans run in 2020, and he (or she) will get every single goddamned thing.
      Forced labor camps? Hey, we gotta work across the aisle.

      Religious tests for public office? Hey, we gotta compromise.

      100% tax cut for all businesses that outsource labor? It’s called incrementalism. We’ll make small gains later.

      Death sentence for women who seek abortions? Don’t let the perfect prevent the good.

      • Get a grip Alex. Trump floated the possibility of *some sort* of penalty for women getting abortions and it was the “prolifers” who clobbered him. Because we all know that it’s only those sexy satanic abortionists who seduce and deceive women into getting abortions. The women themselves are more innocent than their own murdered children.

      • Jack, my abortion example wasn’t about the candidates’ (or their parties’) actually stances. It was an example of how Demcrats always cave, no matter what, and claim they’re doing it as “strategy.”

        And as for a grip. Good Lord, man, that’s been gone for years and years now.

      • «The women themselves are more innocent than their own murdered children.» For «Jack Heart», foeti are «children», who, in case the women bearing them have sought and receive an abortion, have been «murdered». Given that the rate of spontaneous abortion in all fertalisations (including ones of which the carrier is unaware) is estimated to be 30 – 50 %, any women who has engaged in sexual intercourse after which fertilisation has occurred, is likely to have borne, for shorter or longer periods of time, knowingly or unknowingly, «murdered children». Presumably «Jack Heart», so concerned about the fate of «murdered children» – at least of those never brought to term ; somehow I doubt he’s quite as concerned about their fate after birth, for such concerns inevitably lead to government interference in the sacred sphere of family life – devotes most of his waking life to the promotion of the use of condoms and other anti-conception devices….

        Henri

      • It would seem our dear friend henri cannot differentiate between natural death and murder. As he is clearly in poor mental health, I can only wish him the best for a possible recovery!

      • «It would seem our dear friend henri cannot differentiate between natural death and murder.» It would seem that our beloved «Jack Heart», whose ignorance can always be counted upon for entertainment, if not elucidation, is unaware of the fact that adequate prenatal care can reduce the incidence of spontaneous abortions. Were such care to be made available to all, the number of spontaneous abortions would fall. Thus, refusal to provides such care on the part of the authorities would, by «Jack Heart’s» criterion, seem to constitute, if not murder, at least criminally negligent homicide. But of course, we know that our dear «Jack Heart», far from being culpable of criminally negligent homicide by advocating policies which deny provision of such care to all, supports, feminist that he is, all measures that enhance the welfare of women, including prenatal and maternal care, even when such care is funded through taxes which he has to pay. A shining example of altruistic philanthropy !…

        Henri

    • I’ll be drinking a mug of beer as the election results come in. Accompanied by another mug or six and a few shots of bourbon while I’m at it.

      With any luck, it’ll take me four years to sleep it off.

      • I am proud of the fact that I shook the hand of a United States President.

        That picture was taken in 1995.

        Bill is not Hillary.

        Need I explain further?

      • Bill and Hillary are a political partnership. You realize this? They are an item. One and the same…

      • Apparently further explanation is indeed warranted, so try to keep up with the rest of the class.

        Judged by objective standards, President Bill Clinton was a great political leader; the picture was taken in 1995. The Bill Clinton of today is not the Bill Clinton of 21 years ago.

        I am not the same person I was 21 years ago and Hillary Clinton is a different person today from the person she was in 1995.

        I trust that you, too, have changed over 21 years, no?

        I remain proud that I met Bill and Hillary at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion in 1987 and that I shook the hand of a sitting U.S. President in 1995.

        In no way, shape, or form can that be construed to mean that I support Hillary’s politics today.

        Does that help you wrap your mind around the situation?

      • If by great political leader all you mean is persuader/communicator then sure. If you mean he did anything good then NAFTA and half a million dead Iraqi children would beg to differ.

      • @ Jack Heart –

        Apparently, reading comprehension is not one of your skills. I wrote: “Judged by objective standards….” Try to keep up, will you?

        At any rate, nothing you have written thusfar negates my original post about Hillary or my refutation of your unwarranted attack. Try to stay on topic.

    • «Hell, I’d vote for “Anonymous” before I would vote for either Trump or Clinton. Just roll the dice.»

      Dice with the word «Anonymous» on each of their six faces ? Hard to load them in that event….

      Henri

  3. Love that suggestion, Ted, that candidates be anonymous, but rather than appearing in the dark, wouldn’t it suffice with a Guy Fawkes mask ?…

    Would beat the hell out of a Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or a Donald John Trump mask !…

    Henri

Leave a Reply