Hillary’s latest gift to Trump


"“You know,” Clinton said at the LGBT event, “to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

“Right?” Clinton said as the crowd laughed and applauded.

“The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it,” Clinton continued. “And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”

The Democratic nominee then sought to draw a distinction between the two halves of the “basket.”

“Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket,” she said, “are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.”

These Trump supporters, Clinton said, “don't buy everything he says,” but “hold out some hope that their lives will be different” with him as president. “They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”"  Politico


Well, "that will leave a mark."

This current American witticism refers to some god awful hard fall in sports or anything else.  Politicians have obviously not come to understand that cameras are everywhere with their unblinking eyes recording, transmitting, immortalizing. 

In this instance HC was on her home ground, in Manhattan, hanging out with her fellow moneyed utopians, relaxed, maybe  a glass of wine or two had been drunk and her real beliefs about the imperfections of non-utopian Americans came to the surface.  Half of his present polling "scores" would be something like 60-70 million Americans?

As I wrote in my post "The Essential Hilly" (linked below) she has been a utopian for a very long time.  She said in her valedictory speech at Wellesley College that it was "human reconstruction" that she wants.  IMO she still wants that and the money, lots of money. 

So, when she describes "half of Trump's supporters" as "deplorables" she means that if she could, she would change them so that they would be to her taste.  This pretty much defines the "big grandma" attitude.

Yes, this will leave a mark. 

"A pox on both their houses."  I want to vote for Bill Weld.  pl



This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Hillary’s latest gift to Trump

  1. Bobo says:

    We all want Bill Weld, or should, but unfortunately he is upside down with a bong sucker on top, That’s a no go for most.
    Now we know where she places old Hugh. Somehow this was not a slip of the Tongue like Miits 47% but more of a tested political strategy. Bubba was out this week putting down the Coal Country people of Kentucky and West Virginia so some wacko has sold them on marginalizing the voter base as a winning strategy.
    Since she wants to talk about deplorable people just remember that period a few decades ago when we all heard about the Juanitas, Paula’s, Monica’s etc plus dresses, desks, impeachments et al while she stood by her man. At least Huma finally took her child and left something Hill should of done decades ago. We could go on about these people but please let God Save America and Donaldo please do not fall into this trap.

  2. Eric Newhill says:

    Sir, while revealing that kind of attitude does ensure that people leaning Trump won’t switch sides to Clinton, it also strengthens her base. Even outside of NYC there are many who hold the same utopian beliefs. It’s a nationwide movement.
    An acquaintance of mine who fancies himself an intellectual and who is a strong Clinton supporter/Trump hater told me the other day that the fundamental problem in our society is males with too much testosterone. They aren’t needed any more and they ruin everything for everyone else. The military would be a good place for such men, he said, but then the result would be too much war. So, they need to either be genetically engineered out of the population or, perhaps, sent into outer space as explorers, starship marines, etc. I’m pretty sure he was serious. I have a feeling that Hillary and her ilk would agree.
    And there’s a whole network of interlinked media online and MSM that promote that, and related, viewpoints. It’s their raison d’etre. Some us are unaware of the extent and power of this alternate network because when we see a portal into it, we think it is idiotic and don’t enter. But once you’re inside, if you’re impressionable, the self-reinforcing blob has got your mind. So don’t underestimate how many cheer what Hillary said.
    This election, more than any in my lifetime, IMO, will define what kind of nation we are and are going to be. The supreme court appointments and executive orders based on utopianism would be devastating.God help us if Hillary wins.

  3. rjj says:

    score: 8.2 MAs (Madeline Albright units).
    keep her talking – it mobilizes the repudiatniks.

  4. turcopolier says:

    Eric Newhill
    So, you think I underestimate them? pl

  5. Tyler says:

    And everyone was worried about Trump stepping on his crank.
    Say what you will but the man learns incredibly fast. Hillary has been doing this for how long and she never, ever learns from her mistakes or attempts to.

  6. Eric Newhill says:

    Yes, Sir. I do; numerically speaking. I think you underestimate the number of totally convinced adherents – the people for whom the world Hillary describes is the promised land – especially among the young.
    I say this because you see Hillary’s words at the rally as a gift to Trump. It’s only a Trump gift is she is alienating a majority. If she is strengthening her hold over a majority, then it’s not a gift. I think it is the latter – not by much, but just enough. We will see in Nov.

  7. Freudenschade says:

    This is part of a long term strategy by the Clinton campaign to separate the moderate republicans from the rest of the flock. It was evident in her “alt-right” speech and in much of the bigotry charges by Clinton and her surrogates. It is also evident in her active recruitment of moderate R’s such as Meg Whitman to endorse her and campaign for her. This speech also was no accident.
    Trump in turn makes gestures towards minorities in order to assuage those same moderates.
    Whether the election will be decided by suburban, college educated voters, I have no idea.

  8. turcopolier says:

    Perhaps Big Sue Fulton was at the Manhattan affair last night. pl

  9. turcopolier says:

    If this was a calculated move, it was madness. It will drive large numbers of people toward Trump and away from her. pl

  10. turcopolier says:

    Eric Newhill
    You are a remarkably literal minded person. Have you no sense of irony at all? All right, to satisfy people like you I will say that I have struggled against this vast utopian conspiracy for a very long time. The old timers here know that. pl

  11. I don’t know, Eric. I really don’t think people like your ‘intellectual’ friend are all *that* numerous. If they were, Trump wouldn’t be polling so well. Because they live in a self-reinforcing bubble, as you accurately pointed out, they may think they’re the majority, but I have my doubts. In any case, people like that were safe Democratic votes anyway; in this case, Hellary is just preaching to the converted. It is my theory that this election will be decided by base turnout more than anything else. So she’s gonna hit all the LGBT conventions between now and November saying the same thing.

  12. “And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million.”
    With her high-profile speech, Hellary’s lifted them up too. I’m sure her back-handed endorsement will be a real boon to their business model.
    “But the other basket,” she said, “are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change.”
    Too bad Hellary can’t run as the ‘agent of change’ then. She’s gonna lose that vote, too.

  13. Kooshy says:

    I guess granny forgot this folks she calls deplorables, are not her usual Putin’ Russian people, some one in her staff should have said to her madam secretary are you referring to many many american voters here.

  14. LeaNder says:

    I like Frodoschade, did I mix up the characters of the Lord of the Rings trilogy somewhere more recently? I wonder. It’s long ago.
    Manhattan Affair last night?
    But yes, odd aka.

  15. LeaNder says:

    Oh, yes, sorry, was that last night?

  16. Freudenschade says:

    The more the news cycle is dominated by emails and foundations, the worse for Clinton. The more it’s dominated by bigotry, etc., the worse it is for Trump. I’m not sure how many of the people insulted by this “deplorables” rhetoric are not already voting for the GOP nominee. This is about swaying that part of the electorate that feels uncomfortable voting for a candidate associated with bigotry, etc., namely white, college educated voters. I don’t see how they are driven toward Trump in droves if the media revisit the footage from his rallies.

  17. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel,
    Wow! Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper comes to mind – the inhabitants of Versailles need to get out without their handlers – but they wont, afterall why bother when everyone can eat cake!
    I suppose the prescribed solution is for all right minded people to align the thoughts of all wrong minded people to those of the Borg Queen……

  18. VietnamVet says:

    What you pointed out in NY City is a combination of identity politics, tribal hatreds and focus group research used to gain power and to grab billions of dollars of corrupt money. The 2016 candidates are so bad they make Wall Street’s Mitt Romney seem Presidential. The problem is the grift can’t be stopped and the rule of law enforced without a restoration. But, instead of a 21st Century New Deal, what is more likely is a is Armageddon. Natural human divisions and identities are being exploited by the powerful to pillage and plunder. Chaos, war and austerity are spreading across the world. They can only be stopped by restoring government by and for the people, jailing criminals and building peace between nations.

  19. Stuart Wood says:

    I am no fan of Hillary but she has to be much better than the Trumpster. Cherry picking her college statements, “She said in her valedictory speech at Wellesley College that it was “human reconstruction” that she wants””, as to her current thinking is going a too far. Hillary Clinton is an intelligent individual who most likely has learned a lot from the past (as have all of us).

  20. Tyler says:

    I think the social justice league is overly represented because its so damn whiny. Most Americans are more concerned with trying to get by and don’t want to be lectured on their privilege by some trust fund baby with a doctorate in Muslims Transgender Skateboarding.
    This is as big a strategic error as Romney’s 47% comment, which was at least true.

  21. Tyler says:

    Unlike the communists of yore, the modern day crop of progressives lack the message discipline to wait until the populace is disarmed before signalling who the kulaks are and who its okay to do violence to.
    We saw it in San Jose and Minnesota where the left has a surfeit of courage when they believe the target is unarmed, and then they’re crying about Dallas and Phoenix regarding the fact that throwing bricks at people attending a Trump rally might end up with bullets being hurled their way.
    Clinton is just letting you know that if you’re not down with her agenda, she’s got a bunk in a gulag waiting for you.

  22. turcopolier says:

    Stuart Wood
    No. Few of us have learned anything new that is basic to our natures since we were 22. pl

  23. DC says:

    She might drive me to vote for Trump out of spite.
    For all her intelligence, she really is a moron.

  24. Jack says:

    I am a registered non-partisan and have not voted for the duopoly in over two decades. For the last four presidential elections I have written in Ron Paul as my philosophy is so well aligned with his. I believe in a non-interventionist policy in both foreign and domestic affairs.
    In this election I am seriously considering voting for Donald Trump, although my state is one of those reliable Democrat blue states one sees in maps of the electoral college. I believe Hillary presents an existential threat to us and the world. For some time she’s been calling Putin a thug. And this whole “red-baiting” around Trump’s point that he can work with Putin on ensuring regional stability is in my opinion mendacious. I understand that in the case of Trump there is uncertainty since we have no idea how he’ll perform if elected. But there is at least a small probability that he will dial back the use of military force and interventions in places we have no real national interests, as he has stated numerous times during this campaign. On the other hand Hillary has a proven track record of poor judgment and belligerence in the faith-based belief that there are no consequences for destabilization. She like Madeleine Albright have proven that they are quite happy to sacrifice blood and treasure to achieve narrow domestic political gains. A very cynical and treacherous strategy. With the Borg Queen we don’t have to speculate what her actions are likely to be as she has consistently acted to the benefit of the Borg no matter the costs. She is a real threat to global stability.

  25. Ghostship says:

    “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it,” Clinton continued. “And unfortunately there are people like that.
    Replace the Islamophobic with sectarian and antisemitic and you’re describing some of the more prolific funders of the Clinton Foundation and also her campaign according to the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince.
    As they say, you shall be known by the company you keep.

  26. TV says:

    You certainly sound like a fan.
    Does that make you a fan of exposing national secrets repeatedly and then lying about it repeatedly?
    How about using the State Dept. as a money laundry?
    You a fan of that?

  27. crf says:

    She looks at the world and sees stereotypes everywhere. Stereotypical people causing stereotypical problems. This is, I think, a basic human reaction, and the way too many people look at problems. It shows a lack of self-reflection and mental self-discipline (which also happen to be a serious problem for Trump). It’s also not a scientific outlook. Clinton may say she supports science: but clearly to her it is just another word.

  28. Eric Newhill says:

    Seamus and Tyler,
    I hope you two are correct. I agree that motivation to actually get out and vote will be a critical factor. I also believe that what people do in the privacy of the ballot box may be different from what they tell their neighbors and pollsters they think. This will also be pro-Trump. There’s a lot of social shaming coming from the progressives.
    That said, my experience with young people (I live in a college town) is that they are hyper-sensitive to social justice issues and “bigotry”, however loosely they define it, is about as bad a characteristic as one can possess. It’s like social leprosy. The political chatter I pick up in the corporate HQ (read white collar/college educated women and men) in CT is all about how Trump is a racist maniac. I know some life long republicans that say they won’t vote for Trump for the same reasons.
    OTOH hand, every farmer, law enforcement personnel, trade worker, horse racing associate and most small business owners – basically anyone that gets their hands dirty – I know, is pro-Trump.
    But my understanding of demographics as it relates to the electoral votes, tells me that the SJWs, SJW-lites, and other assorted virtue-signalers, Clinton’s target audience, may have a population large enough to sway the election in grandma’s favor. I think Clinton believes that too.

  29. Tyler says:

    You can give Trump hell but at least he learns quickly from his mistakes.
    Hillary, in typical SJW fashion, doubles down every time.

  30. Booby says:

    Since I am down South & “still clinging to my God & my guns”, I am sure that I’m somewhere in Hill’s “basket of deplorables”. I’m just not sure which half of the basket I’m in – the irredemables destined for the gulags or the frustrated who can be re-educated & then assimilated. Either way, I don’t think that Hill’s utopia would be a happy place for me.
    Before the 2008 election I read Alynski’s “Rules for Radicals” which is a guide for regime change from inside. Anytime in the last 8 years that I couldn’t figure the logic of some WH position I would go back to the logic of the Alynski model & thing would make sense. Hill follows the model – vilify your opponents, divide your opponents.
    This election is for the soul of America. Unfortunately voters are presented with 2 very flawed candidates – the Borg Queen & a knight pretender in very rusty armour. God help us.

  31. Fred says:

    To paraphrase Brillat-Savarin – To make anti-foreigner comments is deplorable, to make anti-American comments is an art.
    “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” Clinton said in a statement…”
    I’m sure one of the Praetorian Prefects of the Press, Mr. Jorge Ramos, followed by Soledad O’Brien and a cohort of the guard, will approve of these comments. It’s not like Hillary insulted The Race. Unsurprisingly no comments from Colin Kapernick and the you know which lives matter group. Maybe they don’t read the post?
    Which foreign nation is Hillary running to be President of, she sure loves all of those fine people more than she loves ours?

  32. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I agree that the scope for US-Russian productive cooperation is vast. I think US leaders are not interested in that, however attractive that might be – and not just with Russia but with other countries as well.
    When Northern imperialists gained control of US, they never looked back; with CSA defeated and demoralized, there was no longer any internal opposition or constraint on them. And that has been the case ever since.
    It is hard to argue with (or against) decades of success.

  33. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Aren’t there 3 “G”s in South; God, Gus, and Garden?

  34. Castellio says:

    There is intelligence, and then there’s self reflection.

  35. Fred says:

    When Hillary makes bigoted anti-American statements it is conventional wisdom that this acceptable speech. It is not surprising since this was in the city (and by the party) that defended the NEA funding of “Piss Christ”.

  36. Eric Newhill,
    Obviously, there is a risk of my projecting my understanding of things in Britain onto the American situation.
    But it does seem to me that Hillary and her supporters could usefully have looked more closely at the failure of the ‘Remain’ campaign.
    It was a basic premise of the way that campaign was managed that the ‘Brexiteers’ were a bunch of atavistic dead-beat ‘hicks’, who unfortunately had not all managed to die out yet.
    One of the things those who planned that campaign completely missed was that there is a very large significant body of opinion which has been quite happy to, as it were, go a long way with ‘liberal’ agendas, but has been increasingly inclined to suspect that one can, as it were, push a good thing too far.
    And when people of this kind feel they have been pushed too far, old allegiances can come rather dramatically into question.
    The points at which, as it were, people ‘snap’ can be different – but let me give you a number of issues where quite a broad swathe of opinon, in this country, has, in my view, been coming to feel that Hillary and her British equivalents have gone much too far.
    I cannot document my sense of ‘sticking points’ with hard evidence, but for what they are worth a few are as follows:
    A lot of people who would either welcome or at least accept gay marriage would think that legal provisions to enforce transgender toilets are both lunatic and morally repulsive.
    A lot of people who have been traditionally friendly to immigrants, and have no generalised prejudice whatsoever against people of different skin colour or religion – and indeed, might be quite happy to see their sons or daughters marry a boy or girl from a Hindu or Muslim family – are not very happy if they discover that only just under half of mosques this country are Deobandi.
    And it seems reasonably clear that opposition to free movement of peoples, both in relation to the acceptance of refugees from outside Europe, and also a ‘Europe without borders’, has moved right into the mainstream.
    Accordingly, a lot of traditionally ‘liberal’ people would I think be increasingly disposed to think that Hillary’s apparent enthusiasm for ‘open borders’ with Mexico is, like Merkel’s welcome to refugees, a form of civilisational ‘death wish’.
    Meanwhile, a lot of people who have no desire whatsoever to revert to traditional notions of male/female role differentiation – the man as bringing home the bacon, the woman as homemaker, as it were – would think it simply ludicrous, and indeed, often, morally repugnant, to open up all branches of the services, up to and including the SAS, to women.
    (One has armed forces to fight wars, if that is what needs to be done, not to indulge in gesture politics – and, while those who enlist must take their chances, there is never any excuse for throwing people into danger without good reason.)
    In the current situation, people of the kind I am describing find it very difficult to know what to do.
    On the one hand, the fact that they have more sympathy with some of what people like Trump and Farage are saying than they would once have had commonly does not do much to overcome their deep distrust of such people.
    On the other, they look at people like like Hillary, or Blair, or Cameron, and see an absolutely inability to respond to or indeed empathise with their concerns, and indeed one might say, perplexities.
    What Clinton has just done, as I see it, is repeat the failure of the ‘Remain’ elites confronted by the ‘Brexit’ vote.
    Commonly, they concluded that their central problem was not doing enough to appease ‘poor white trash’. In so doing, they demonstrated their utter inability to contemplate the possibility that perfectly rational people – and also people who were not on the breadline – could disagree with them.
    The combination of intellectual arrogance, stupidity, and condescension is almost beyond belief.

  37. Tyler says:

    The squeaky wheel gets the oil but remember this.
    You need comparisons of support, compare Borg Grandma rallies to those of the Trump. Hillary can’t even fill a JuCo auditorium. Trump has to rent stadiums and they still turn people away.

  38. Kooshy says:

    Frankly I have a hard time reading your comment and imagining that you are no fan of Hillary, I really don’t know what to believe, what I am reading, to believe you, or the Pinot Grigio in front of me. Soon I would know.

  39. Kooshy says:

    Colonel, the choice to vote for the next president is coming down to three main ideologies
    One is to vote for interventionist, Utopianism to fix the world to match what we like no matter what the cost. Second is to vote for non-interventionist, nationalist business man who thinks everything most have a ROI ( I understand this myself). The third choice no matter who and what, is a protest vote to find out what is Aleppo.

  40. kao_hsien_chih says:

    That pretty fits into my sense of the universe, too. Among the people that I run into professionally, nobody is pro-Trump, young and old alike. Among the people I run into outside my profession, Trump enjoys far more support, one exception being people who are ethnic, who don’t trust HRC much, but trust Trump and his associates less, especially the more Trump opens his mouth.
    I don’t know if the kind of hectoring that HRC is given to will change things much, beyond reinforcing people’s existing perceptions. But that is rather dangerous for Trump’s prospects: Trump needs both “working class” people (broadly defined) and a large chunk of white collar voters. Without the latter, he has no chance mathematically. The kind of rhetoric that Clinton resorts to does sharpen the very real division among the potential Trump supporters, in addition to being insulting.

  41. This reminds me so much of this scene from “Blazing Saddles.” When we can make a movie like this and the vast majority of Americans can get a good laugh out of it, the country will be healed.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Cannot be more cool than joining yet another Deplorable Cultus.
    If I were american I would rather play the part of a nazgul, an orc or a balrog, than play Dino in a rerun of the Clintstones.

  43. David says:

    Your reaction was similar to mine with those who can be re-educated and those who will be sent to the gulag decided by the “social justice warriors”, our future Red Guards. It does not take a lot of people for all this to happen, all it takes is sufficient sanction from the people in charge.
    This makes it even more frightening that her demonizing of Putin as the new Hitler was not said for crass political advantage or juvenile name calling, but because she actually believes it. If Clinton really thinks that Putin is somehow an “irredemable”, then it makes it difficult to think that he can negotiate with him. There was an incident where Clinton was not happy with foreign minister Lavrov and just walked out on him. Does anyone know the details ?

  44. alba etie says:

    Col Lang
    Yes I would like to vote for former Mass Governor Bill Weld as well . Wish Weld could have been on the top of the Libertarian ticket .

  45. Freudenschade says:

    Respectfully, can you give me some examples of this bigoted speech by Clinton?

  46. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Well, we will be healed when the people who are laughing are those who are being mocked.
    I honestly thought we were getting closer when the redneck jokes were funny…to rednecks. Now, redneck jokes are told by people who despise us rednecks, and even if the jokes were exactly the same, I don’t find them very funny since I know where they are coming from. As Steinbeck said, nothing is ugly except those clothed in condescension, and when something is clothed in condescension, nothing is uglier.
    The way we speak to one another, literally or figuratively, has changed: while some conventions of “polite” conversation has always existed, we can’t speak frankly with one another any more, out of fear that we might offend someone somehow (and this applies to the left and the right alike.) So we speak in salubrious nonsense that means nothing, or, we claim to be speaking frankly, and use pointed language primarily, if not only, to offend their presumed enemies. I personally know quite a few people who would have (and in some cases did, if they saw the film) find the scene funny a decade ago, and now, find it utterly offensive because of the way context has changed, and with this change in language, room for honest and open discussion is disappearing.
    All in all, a sad development.

  47. Doug Colwell says:

    Could you expand on that or give examples? This is a sincere question.

  48. I can understand this. Hillary makes me angry for a number of reasons. But Trump is nuts.
    The Republican Party’s tragedy in this cycle is that so many other candidates were on stage against Trump in the primary. Trump never got much more than about 35% (average) of the primary votes, until the others started dropping out.
    Well, 35% of Republican voters is around 15-16% of all voters — Trump’s core support in the country. The rest of the Republicans are now behind him, not because they like him, but because they hate Hillary.
    If the Republicans had nominated Kasich, he’d be 6-8 points ahead of her, right now.
    If Hillary wins in November — at this moment, still the most likely outcome, although the spread is closing — the Republican Party may split in half.

  49. Eric Newhill says:

    Mr. Habakkuk,
    Thank you for the thoughtful comment in response. I agree with all you say. In fact, you described my own political evolution very closely. I voted for Obama twice. I now regret doing so (though I could not have gone with McCain under any circumstances, Romney would have been livable). I have come to see that if you give the progressives an inch they take a mile. There is no live and let live with those people. Thus, they must be stopped.
    Here’s to hoping you are correct that the American version of the Brexit crowd has become offended enough, and in sufficient numbers, to give the Borg a good shock this November.

  50. Peter Reichard says:

    Romney’s conservative conceit was that anyone not supporting him must have been an irresponsible person bought off by government benefits. He was oblivious to the fact that the 47 percent of adults who don’t pay income tax include retirees, college students, the unemployed seeking work, the working poor who pay social insurance and sales taxes but not income tax, the truly disabled and the institutionalized.
    Clinton’s liberal conceit is that half of those not supporting her are raciest, homophobic, misogynistic, and/or xenophobic uneducated rednecks and the rest misguided as if any thinking person would just naturally agree with her.
    Neither understand both represent just different parts of the same establishment and that much of the support for Obama and Trump was then and is now based on a yearning, however misplaced it might have been then and I highly suspect is now, for fundamental change to a corrupt system that is rigged against most of us.

  51. Edward Amame says:

    Oopsie. Somebody just said something we’re not supposed to say out loud.

  52. Bobo says:

    Being the 15th Anniversary of 9/11 thought some would like to see a different view of that day and yes some of the characters are Deplorables but we were all Americans that day as we are today. Dividing people into sections has never worked as we all yearn for better way and Yearning for a better country is what we all desire.

  53. Valissa says:

    Clinton falls ill during 9/11 memorial service in New York https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/11/clinton-falls-ill-during-911-memorial-service-in-new-york/
    “Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen,” Nick Merrill said. “During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment and is feeling much better.”
    It’s currently only 79 in NYC, though with humidity feels a bit warmer.

  54. Tyler says:

    This might have a little more sting if your side wasn’t constantly playing Thought Police for anyone who dares notice anything that goes against the egalitarian “We are all the same” insanity.

  55. Tyler says:

    Hillary just had a syncopal episode at the 9/11 memorial. Hoo boy. The lady is unwell and needs to drop out.

  56. Fred says:

    What bubble have you been living in? Perhaps this “Deplorable” business is not merely camouflage for labeling anyone who might agree with a policy of Trumps as “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it,” – Hilary Clinton, as quoted above.

  57. Fred says:

    As I recall Governor O’Malley was driven off the stage by saying “all ives matter” and Senator Sanders was beaten because “The system is rigged”. But lets choose to forget those things ever happened.

  58. Re says:

    Hillary doubles down with her apology and her supporters wonder what’s the uproar about. The the implied conceit and contempt is now explicit.

  59. Fred says:

    The sectional power struggle is now more bi-coastal regions against the center and South rather than strictly North – South. The radicals (Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, etc) wanted Congressional control over the central government and had the impeachment of Johnson succeeded in removing him from office they would have gained it. It is a forbidden subject now since the war was all about “slavery” not political power and to bring up anything not conforming to the narrative is to be labeled a racist bigot and shunned from polite society. (And business opportunities and current or future employment. – just like not being an SJW does to one today.)

  60. Fred says:

    As Mel Brooks pointed out he couldn’t get that movie made today. Don’t forget the non-apology scene, which was just enacted by Hilary.

  61. Stu says:

    I sadly agree with the excellent article, “The Flight 93 Election”.

  62. Fred says:

    Yes, as a Machiavellian one is supposed to obtain power first then ruthlessly crush those one despises. Kind of like slick Willy did with NAFTA and Obama did with EPA regulations on coal. You put the dagger in quickly while they still trust you. Hilary should have learned from the master.

  63. Freudenschade says:

    I’m not sure I see how it is bigoted. Can you explain?

  64. Fred says:

    Thank you for your insights. I believe that just as the Borg can’t understand that Russia is not the USSR the establishment politicians can not understand that America – white Americans especially – are not 1960s Americans. The establishment left is desperate to repeat the achievements of that time and yet those barriers were swept away long ago. All they have remaining is the deep contempt for traditional idea of America as an aspirational society.

  65. Jack says:

    Many moons ago when I was in college a group of us including a couple Indians saw Peter Sellers’ movie The Party. It was a caricature of a bungling Indian actor who accidentally gets invited to a lavish Hollywood party. We all laughed ourselves silly. No one was offended. Such a movie could not be made in today’s PC environment. I recall the many polish, irish, Italian, blond gal and redneck jokes.
    It is a sad state of affairs and how far we have traveled when we can’t even have a laugh at ourselves. IMO, this is one of those artifacts of “progressivism” where only the Commissars can arbiter acceptable speech.

  66. I don’t think anybody is about to forget! This election is not the game, & the game is just getting started.
    I think we are heading into multiple-party politics, much like the US antebellum period.

  67. Babak Makkinejad says:

    In UK, they adjudicated among Muslims; they chose Deobanids and Wahhabis and assorted other fellow travelers and called political anathema on the Shia.
    That is the politico-religious choice that opened many doors to the hinterlands of Muslim Civilization for them and closed the door to heart of that civilization.
    And as UK did so, so did the rest of the so-called Atlantic Community.
    Life is tough all over.

  68. Jack says:

    Zerohedge has video of Hillary’s legs buckling as she is carried into the SUV.
    She’s got a grueling campaign ahead as the election enters the final stretch.

  69. Jack says:

    A partnership between the US and Russia could usher in an era of global stability. We could extricate ourselves from our costly interventions in particular in the Middle East. Europe can then resolve its burning issues before the EU breaks apart. We can cooperate on space missions. Lot of reasons to break from the Cold War mindset and move forward.

  70. Jack says:

    I agree with your assessment.

  71. Tyler says:

    Which part?

  72. Tyler says:

    Been hearing this since before the 2000 election. No, we are not.

  73. Tyler says:

    That video is absolutely stunning. If the SS wasn’t there to hold her up, she would have taken a header right into the van.
    MSNBC is describing the heat as “horrific, very hot, extremely humid temperatures” as the temperature stands at 78 degrees. I continue to be proven correct: the media will do its damndest to drag her corpse across the finish line.
    This is Pravda level antics, folks.

  74. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Some time ago, Col. Lang described his role as offering analyses, not advocacy, in response to people who “disagreed” with his views on Middle Eastern affairs. That got me thinking quite bit, in light of what I do and the kind of reactions that I ran into from different quarters.
    One of things I do is to analyze public opinion data, and the cardinal rule thereof is that everyone’s opinion is “legitimate”–they know and believe certain things about the universe and arrived at their opinions through a reasonable process. The important thing is the immutable fact that, at the time of the survey, at least, our respondents believe the things that they do (as far as we can tell) and that we can’t agree or disagree with. While we may have different opinions from they do, our opinion is none of our business. What we want to know is to understand why they believe what they do and, if we are working for someone who would rather they believe otherwise, what kind of information (ads, etc.) would make whom among them change their mind, for what reasons.
    In a sense, having a strong opinion is the worst thing you can do in this line of work, I always thought: it makes you believe that your opinion is in fact “true” and that the people who don’t agree with you should and can be persuaded to leave their views behind, if only they were shown “the truth” (that you think is the truth anyways). If the other side does not convert instantly, then you, with your strong opinion of righteousness, are liable to believe those who disagree with you morally wrong and otherwise incorrigible. It blocks off venues for conversation and exchange that could take place under the assumption that reasonable people can disagree on things because we don’t know “the truth” enough to know if we (or they) are “really” right or not.
    One thing that I discovered in public opinion research is that the number of “underdecided” (rather than purely “undecided”) is usually far larger than people think. Yes, people lean one reason or another based on their existing beliefs and knowledge, but they recognize that their understanding of the universe is imperfect and, with the “right information” that they can trust, they might change their mind. The problem is that this information, once the hallmark of good political campaigns, is increasingly difficult to find. I think the problem is, at least partly, because so much public talk that takes place today is dripping in such condescension that it is hard to identify honest, well-meaning, but sharp commentary. The air of condescension (or even suspicion thereof) destroys any credibility to the audience.
    Adm. Hyman Rickover, himself quoting someone else, said that the one type of subordinate he can’t tolerate is someone who always agrees with him, that “to doubt one’s own first principles is the mark of a civilized man.” I think the average person is far more civilized than they get credit for, that under the right circumstances, they are perfectly willing to reconsider their first principles and change their mind–if presented with sufficiently good reasons. What I doubt is that whether those who dominate the public talk are sufficiently civilized. If anything, they have to show sufficient loyalty to their “first principles” that they really mean it. To publicly doubt “the party is always right” dogma is to invite ostracism, especially if they have a “public” role. The universe is increasingly becoming more barbaric and uncivilized, in the name of “progress,” in other words.
    Well, thankfully, I am “speaking” semi-anonymously, with other mostly semi-anonymous people, I suppose, and hopefully, I can be honest and frank in saying what I think, regardless of what people think. I don’t know if the worldview like Rickover’s has much room in today’s universe, for anyone in a public, official capacity, though.

  75. Fred says:

    I see a different picture in my workplace. Virtually none will say they are pro-Trump but the republicans scoff at Hilary and aren’t going to either vote for her or stay home. Most of the union members I know (UAW, Steelworkers) have changed outlooks and are not voting for the Democratic party and some are quite openly for Trump. Amongst the teachers and university professors it’s all Hilary and most are quite partisan about it. Overall I put the net result at about a 10% decline for democrats and amongst the union members That’s probably a permanent shift.

  76. Fred says:

    If you need an explanation I can’t help you.

  77. Fred says:

    Which is what the West should have done in when the USSR collapsed.

  78. Fred says:

    He was quoting Justice Holmes:
    “To know what you want and why you think that such a measure will help it is the first but by no means the last step towards intelligent legal reform. The other and more difficult one is to realize what you must give up to get it, and to consider whether you are ready to pay the price.”
    “”I think the average person is far more civilized than they get credit for, that under the right circumstances,…”
    I believe that the veneer of civilization is quite thin and we see that fact nightly in many cities of the Republic.

  79. Doug Colwell says:

    Learns quickly. The double down is obvious, even to someone (such as myself) who has little spare time for media.

  80. Laura says:

    Kooshy, I don’t see how you can call Trump non-interventionist. In fact, I consider him to be a more extreme form of GWB who “personalized” intervention. He went into Iraq as a personal vendetta (albeit backed up by neocon “givens” about Saddam Hussein). Trump will intervene if he is “dissed” PERSONALLY by another country/leader. I find that terrifying. What evidence do you have of his non-interventionist intent? I just don’t see it.

  81. Laura says:

    Well said.

  82. LeaNder says:

    There was an incident where Clinton was not happy with foreign minister Lavrov and just walked out on him. Does anyone know the details ?
    The Politico July article “paints” her as US Iron Lady, occasionally wearing a linguistic faux-pas button. No speaker’s of Russian available at State?. … Representing the Unilateral World Power …
    Second paragraph, might be what you are looking for.
    They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of “regime change” policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival.
    Is this what you have in mind?
    In September 2012, Clinton was to meet with Lavrov on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vladivostok, Russia. Lavrov, a sophisticated member of the Soviet foreign policy aristocracy, took great pleasure in being gentlemanly toward Clinton. He personally picked out the flowers for her hotel room in Vladivostok. But when they met, Lavrov slammed her with some unexpected news: Russia was kicking out the U.S. Agency for International Development and gave the secretary of state 30 days to pack up its contingent in Russia and move it out. Stunned, Clinton stood up and walked out. According to people with knowledge of the meeting, Lavrov tried to get her to stay and talk, but Clinton wasn’t having any of it. She dropped her notes and said he could read those if he wanted to talk, and walked out.
    Edward Snowdon seems a bit homesick, maybe even careful to heighten chances. But his perspective on the DNC/NSA issue is quite good. 😉

  83. If Trump loses, it seems likely. He’ll spin off into the Trump TV Network with emotional politics & showgirls. Money in the bank! Then the moderate GOP will have a choice: keep dancing to his tune, or start another party?

  84. different clue says:

    Stuart Wood,
    She certainly learned a lot from studying Richard Nixon’s Watergate coverup. What she learned is how to do a better coverup. So far it seems she has indeed engineered a much better coverup.

  85. different clue says:

    Lee A. Arnold,
    If the Republicans had nominated one of their Brand Name Candidates, I would be voting for Clinton. It is the fact that they nominated Trump which has set me free to vote Not Clinton, one way or another.

  86. different clue says:

    Lee A. Arnold,
    The Moderate GOP will join the Clintonite Obamacrat Party. The Conservative GOP will say “we tried it Trump’s way and lost. Lets try it the True Conservative way and win.” Cruz will be the next Republican nominee if Trump loses this election.

  87. different clue says:

    Hopefully Trump is healthy enough to set a very tough pace for Clinton to keep up with. Get her back in the hamster wheel and keep her there and keep her running running running.

  88. irf520 says:

    If Trump loses I don’t think it will matter. This election is the last chance to reverse course. It’s already difficult for the republicans to win the presidency. After another 8 years of mass immigration there will be a permanent democrat majority.

  89. Tyler says:

    Trump learned not to apologize from boo, and he picked up the “$100 bill on the ground” in the form of immigration. He was a quick study on what worked on the primary trail, and has learned how to play the media and beat it with its own club. He’s learned message discipline.
    People under estimate him at their own peril.

Comments are closed.