New York, NY — Friday, March 18, 2016 — (SAP: Satirical Amalgamated Press) — Hillary Clinton has announced that she is planning to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans.
Faced with the ascendancy of the junior Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, Clinton explained in an interview today that she feels her chances of being nominated her party’s candidate for the presidency will be better among the Republicans.
“These are just so much more my people,” Clinton said. “The banks and corporations I have been speaking for and consorting with for so long are replete with Republicans anyway. It is just so much more seemly for me to become the candidate of the party that most of them belong to.”
“They don’t call it being in bed with someone for nothing!”
“What about the candidacy of Donald Trump?” this interviewer asked. “Not a problem,” Clinton said. “I happen to know the secret which will enable me to defeat him. You see, when Bill and I attended his third wedding recently, we celebrated by having a nice little tryst where we swapped partners.”
“What’s that got to do with politics?” queried this reporter.
“Everything,” said Clinton. “Everyone knows that since Bill was President, the influence of the Nation’s highest office has been measured by the size of the president’s penis. This is why Donald, bless his heart, has been reassuring the American people during the primary debates that he has ‘no problem’ in that department.”
“Unfortunately for Donald,” she quipped, “I have the inside story.”
“What do you mean by that?” asked this representative of the fourth estate.
“Well, he doesn’t suspect this because I did a ‘Monica’ on him,” said Clinton. “Not only is he a ‘New York minute’ man … I’m actually better off than he is! And I am NOT talking about our respective ‘campaign’ chests …”
“You mean you have actually beaten him in the campaign funds department?” asked this journalist.
“Are you kidding?” quipped Clinton. “Naw, I don’t have more money than he does. But I’ve got it where it *really* counts!”
In answer to several inquiries:
According to the Washington Post (usually a source of reliable journalism), in May of 2015, Bill Clinton called Donald Trump for a private, “upbeat and encouraging”, phone conversation when Trump had very nearly decided to run for President.
The call, one of many that Clinton and Trump have had, is considered especially sensitive, as it came less than a month after Hillary Clinton declared her own presidential bid. Trump at the time had also been repeatedly asked by journalists and other Republican contenders about his donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The Post’s sources, four Trump allies and one Clinton associate, said that in the call, Clinton encouraged the billionaire’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party, and offered his own views of the political landscape. The call was made public last summer, just when many Republicans had begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.
During the call, Trump was candid with Clinton about his political ambitions, the sources agreed, and Clinton offered his own analysis of Trump’s prospects and the billionaire’s desire to rouse the GOP base. Clinton seemed curious about Trump’s presidential intentions, and told Trump (A) that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and (B) was a rising force on the right.
“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times (and) President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said.
Trump and Hillary Clinton are said to have enjoyed a cordial, even cozy relationship in the recent past, when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was her constituent and supporter. He donated generously to Hillary’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
This won't help your cause
The Vulgar is a river in Russia.
Nyet?
Hey Nasty Boy, Your Mind is Showing
Sometimes futile ham-handed and vulgar attempts at comedy say a lot more about the writer than the target. N’est pas?
Nasty Boy?
After my afternoon indulgences I am recovered and compos mentis now, but am I missing something here? Your post is under Spinoza’s comment, so I guess your hey nasty boy is targeted to him, but I don’t get it.
I did think the overly imaginative original post was strange and somewhat vulgar, especially the made up dialogue, but in no way did I think Spinoza was being nasty or ham-handed in reply.
Out of all of the synonyms for ham-handed: clumsy, bungling, incompetent, amateurish, inept, unskillful, inexpert, maladroit,gauche, awkward, inefficient, bumbling, useless; did I think any of them applied to Spinoza.
However, they would fit rather nicely to the author of the original post. Is that who you were really targeting, and mistakenly replied to Spinoza in error? I thought his brief comment was rather apropos.
I Meant The Author, Not Spinoza
Of course I meant the author. Spinoza’s comment was on the nose, spot on. This is the second attempt at something humorous by the author and it’s the worst on so many gutter-y levels. I guess this is the sort of stuff John sits around and thinks about while he has his coffee. Ewwwwwww. Sorry for the confusion Spinoza.
John Has the Nasty Mind
The above comment is for John, Spinoza is deft and droll, John is ham-handed and crude. And I personally do not know how to get this comment positioned underneath the original so I am definitely not the geek.
I don't actually believe this
Is there any way to find out if that picture was photoshopped?
Thanks!
Thanks everyone for your comments. I think the satire stands on its merits. I believe the photo is actual and accurate, as it fits with news stories of the Clintons attending Trump’s wedding. I have another photo apparently taken at the same time, showing these 4 people joking and ‘arranging’ for Trump to run to make things easier for Hillary!
Relations
I expect Trump to make the most of Hillary’s contributions and relations with him if it becomes a contest between the two. He’s already talked of how she came to his wedding because he gave her political donations. I’m not really sure how someone responds to that and comes out ahead.
But you mention that they working together to make it easier for Clinton to run? Any proof of that, or is it a conjecture?
Many politicians on both
Many politicians on both sides were friendly with Trump at the time. Of course they were not working together to make anything easier for Clinton. She was the state Senator at the time and he was a declared Democrat. Trump gave money to everyone, Dems and Repubs. Always knew to butter his bread on both sides. He was at the time a pretty big Dem power player in NYC, it’s not that odd that they went to his wedding.
You do all realize that Trump
You do all realize that Trump was a registered Democrat up until 1987 and again between 2001-2009? The wedding was in 2005.
Right, but
Agreed, but how does one defend against Trump saying the equivalent of “I flashed cash and they jumped?”
If I say that everyone was doing it, I’m just admitting that wealthy people get favors from me and I’m part of a rigged system.
If I say that I was state senator and he was a democrat, lots of other Democrats will say I didn’t go to their wedding so what’s special about this one? (I understand a state senator having meetings and attending functions, but a wedding is a bit more intimate. Not just anyone gets an invitation.)
If I say he gave to everyone, Sanders could say he didn’t get any and didn’t go to any weddings.
Maybe my comeback is – “hey, you were a wealthy guy trying to buy favors!” but the response might be “you had your price.”
I dunno. I wouldn’t call this a positive in the Clinton column.
I think you're fishing here
I think you’re fishing here with no bait. Sanders wasn’t a NY Senator. Also Sanders was an independent so he never did get much money from private Dem donors except peripherally as he did take money from the Democratic pool for candidates when they offered.
Trump had something like 500 guests at his wedding and Clinton was in Florida for something else so they decided to go. Trump says garbage all the time. He may have contributed to Clinton but I doubt she jumped.
She admits she went to the ceremony, Bill didn’t, they both went to the reception and they didn’t give a gift. Probably couldn’t find anything with enough gold on it. Point is Trump was a Democratic voter and donor, there’s really nothing here. And you surely know by now that you can’t believe any insinuations that Trump makes, particularly in this case. No big deal for a state Senator to go to the wedding of a Democrat who is a big real estate guy in the biggest city in the state if not the world. There’s no there here.
Not fishing; questioning
But why did she go to the billionaire’s wedding? Because he gave money. The fact that she went without Bill seems to prove the point even more that it was because she needed campaign donations. “No need for both of us to go, dear.”
That’s the argument that Clinton must defend. I think it is a hard one to defend, but maybe is easy to write off.
It’s dangerous to listen to Trump and try to argue facts. He makes stuff up. If Clinton stumbles through explanations like those above, she’s not going to do well. She needs a quick and decisive comeback, if she makes it to the nomination, for the accusation that she’s been his pawn (even if she isn’t!). You saw his barking dog commercial, right?
What is that spectacular comeback that puts critics in their place? One line, please.
She went to the ceremony,
She went to the ceremony, they both went to the reception. You’re really stretching here. She didn’t go because she needed campaign donations. She was the state senator and he was a Democrat. He was going to donate what he was going to donate. She really has no connection to him at all (as far as having been his pawn), there is nothing there. She never made a decision that favored Trump while state Senator. You’re just searching for something that doesn’t exist.
I'm not sure that anyone -
I’m not sure that anyone – with the exception of Mrs. Clinton – can say with any degree of truth why she went to the wedding. You can argue that she went because she was the State senator; he was a donor, etc, etc. Others can say that she went in case she needed money/favors/whatever from one of the wealthiest men in New York. Unless you were a confidante of hers you don’t actually know any more about her reasons than the rest of us. The reality is that there will no doubt come a day when she has to respond to questions about her attendance at Trump’s wedding. Here’s hoping she has a better answer than she’s had in the past when questioned about possibly suspicious actions.
I’m pretty sure her campaign can’t blame this one on Bernie.
Oh for crying out loud. Maybe
Oh for crying out loud. Maybe she just wanted to see what Melania’s dress was like. I’m beginning to think that if she went to the grocery store and bought non-organic grapes some people would find something devious about it. Ridiculous.
Not to mention that the point I was trying to make was that Trump was not a Republican at the time of the wedding so this entire attempt at humor was based on false premises as John apparently thought Trump was a Republican at the time. Which he wasn’t.
Maybe she did. Maybe she
Maybe she did. Maybe she heard there were going to be really fabulous flowers and that’s why she went. That is exactly the point I’m making. WE don’t know why she went. And neither do you. You responded to Chris’s questions about why she may have gone to the wedding with a surety that you knew exactly why she attended and there was nothing nefarious about it. There are many possible reasons why Hilary Clinton decided to attend Trump’s wedding. Some are totally innocent; some less so. I don’t think it’s wrong or foolish to question it.
What I told Chris was public
What I told Chris was public record and her statements. You want to look for a conspiracy in this have at ‘er. But it would be helpful if the author of this article had known that at the time this happened Trump was a Democrat and not a Republican. Or not…..
Conspiracy Not Needed
I never said I was “looking for a conspiracy”. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not support Clinton without looking for conspiracies. And, while I don’t find John’s original post either funny nor clever ( I’m not a huge fan of “humor” based on sexual acts – particularly when they fall into high school crudeness) but, I didn’t see anywhere in that post that said Trump was a Republican at the time. I assume that most of us know that Trump has flipped back and forth on his political affiliations to suit his needs.
Well one thing we can agree
Well one thing we can agree on. This post was simply disgusting to start with. I think John had better keep his day job.
I couldn't agree more. If you
I couldn’t agree more. If you have to rely on crudeness in an attempt to be witty or humorous you should probably just not bother.
"Like"
“Like”