July 26, 2016

"Why did Hillary get rid of her middle name?... Hillary 'Rotten' Clinton... It's too close."



Trump didn't originate that — I can see Mark Levin using it back in 2007 — but I hadn't noticed it before Trump's little routine (which has some pretty expert comic timing, I think). 

Here's Scott Adams talking about it today: "Rotten cleverly incorporates all of Trump’s best labels for Clinton, including 'crooked' and 'no stamina.'"

159 comments:

shiloh said...

Asked and answered. Let's move on, shall we.

Birkel said...

There simply must be a positive reason to vote for Hillary beyond the Will to Power that the Left embraces.

What is that positive message?

coupe said...

Hashtag #santosubito

Pope is urged to make Father Jacque Hamel Saint Jacques, after being martyred by Muslims in France during Catholic Mass.

If the French don't kill all the Muslims, or get them running for the borders, I will be very disappointed, and maybe change my mothers tombstone.

Chuck said...

One of the lesser-appreciated criticisms of Trump is what a ripoff artist he is, stealing other peoples' lines. Trump, for example, didn't invent the "I prefer people who weren't" captured calumny aimed at John McCain either. Trump just had the lack of decency to repeat it.

mccullough said...

So which one is Godzilla and which is King Kong?

Unknown said...

DVT, Donald Vladimir Trump. Promised to change his middle name for some hacked emails?

Larry J said...

Birkel said...
There simply must be a positive reason to vote for Hillary beyond the Will to Power that the Left embraces.

What is that positive message?


Her biggest reason is that she's historic! Just like Obama as historic! That means any criticism of her policies would automatically be sexist just as criticism of Obama was racist. She's a Vagino-American of little actual accomplishment (sounds familiar) that will finish the job that Obama started of pushing America over the ledge and into the abyss. Some people like that sort of thing because they believe we have it coming. Those of us with jobs and who pay taxes and those with children or grandchildren that we care about are less enthusiastic.

Birkel said...

Larry J:

That is not a reason to vote for Hillary. That is a reason to oppose U.S. history up to the present.

Defining a candidacy in such a negative way is decidedly different than previous winners AmErican politics.

Birkel said...

UnknownInga:

Which candidate promised Putin greater flexibility after a presidential election?

traditionalguy said...

There is a strong smell of sulfur wherever Hillary goes. Maybe she eats too many eggs.

Bill said...

My old landlord calls her Hillary Ramrod Clinton.

Unknown said...

"There simply must be a positive reason to vote for Hillary beyond the Will to Power that the Left embraces."

The biggest reason to vote for Hillary is to defeat Trump.

AJ Lynch said...

Chuck: every blog seems to have at least one commenter who should seek mental help.

Unknown said...

shiloh said...
Asked and answered. Let's move on, shall we.

7/26/16, 10:13 AM

Let the record show that shiloh concedes every criticism of Hillary Rotten Clinton including her crookedness and her lack of stamina!

Unknown said...

There is a strong smell of borscht wafting about Trumps head. Maybe it's the new Russian cologne his buddy sent him.

Birkel said...

UnknownInga:

You were unable to make a positive comment about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you should consider the word positive.

Birkel said...

UnknownInga:

Which candidate promised Putin greater flexibility after a presidential election?

Bruce Hayden said...

Hillary Rotten Clinton shill Unknown desperately trying to change the topic to one made up under the effects of heavy pot use by his cohorts on her campaign staff, notably some ethereal connection between Trump and the Russians. You can sense his desperation through how he tries to tie any criticism of her back to this bogus theory of his.

Brando said...

"“Dark” is a linguistic kill shot from the left. I assume all the TV pundits on Clinton’s team got the message to use the word “dark” right out of the gate. I confess that at first I didn’t recognize how good it is. It’s designed, Trump-style, and it didn’t come from an amateur. The Clinton team is playing some serious 3D chess now."

While much of Scott Adams' impressions are off the mark, he is a very funny writer.

"Rotten" fills in so well for "Rodham" that I'm ashamed of myself for knowing this woman's maiden name for a quarter century and never thought of that play on words. And "rotten" works well for both of Clinton's negative traits--her incompetence and her corruption. "Rotten" means not just lousy, but also corrupted.

So is Trump retiring "Crooked Hillary"? I think "Rotten" works better, because as noted above it hits on the incompetence angle.

I've noticed among both Trump and Hillary fans they don't seem to care about their candidates being "corrupt" or "evil" as their detractors call them--the fans say, "well better that they're on our side, using their corruption for my ends!" But "incompetence" is more potent, because who wants to think of their preferred candidate as a bit of an idiot? No one will say "well that idiot will stupid their way to greatness"--it makes no sense. So the better attack is to go at their incompetence.

Brando said...

"The biggest reason to vote for Hillary is to defeat Trump."

No, it has to be more than that, because they did not have to nominate Hillary, and in fact Hillary might be one of a very few Democrats who could lose to Trump. If beating Trump was all that mattered, the Dems would have wanted to recruit some solid candidates and have an open, competitive primary. Instead we saw a botched coronation, not the sort of thing one associates with victory in fall.

Tommy Duncan said...

Unknown said: "There is a strong smell of borscht wafting about Trumps head. Maybe it's the new Russian cologne his buddy sent him."

Meanwhile, the e-mails were still not written by the Russians.

Unknown said...

It's old history, the kind the Clintons like, but wasn't Bill at least a serious flirt with the Russkies? ISTR lots of his old associations. he's been to Moscow, I recall that much.

I guess enough time has passed that they feel it clever to poke at the bear.

I still think that if government Russians are involved, at the behest of Putin, it is personal because he hates her personally and is getting even.

Again truth is the best defense here. "Russians" is no defense.

Unknown said...

Flip "Dark" LKS in five words. Go:

Trump is our Dark Knight.

Batman was no charm school grad. His wealth didn't corrupt him at all, rather it immunized him from grafting and grubbing like the Clintons.

He's the hero we deserve, but unlike the movie, now we need him too.

narciso said...

who transferred a third of the us uranium stockpile, she had help of course, the rest of the foreign investment board,

chuck said...

Ah, an election where we can spend time analysing the name calling skillz of the players. I've waited all my life for that, it's better than football.

M Jordan said...

Adams is provocative if nothing else. I'm not sure either dark or rotten is a true kill shot. They're just advertising gimmicks. Trump's speech, looking back, seems to be the most effective thing he's done in awhile. I thought it much too long while watching, and grinding in tone, but upon reflection and after talking with others, he did something very right in it. Evangelicals that I know we're very impressed by his public almost-repentance. Foreign policy types like the toughness. People who sense chaos in the world -- and really, who doesn't? -- liked the facing up to the forces of evil. Business types thought it sounded pro-business. Just a lot there for everyone to sink their teeth into ... plus, he seemed presidential, leaderly.

The taunts and tweets nudge the ball but there is something archetypal going on that matters far more.

FullMoon said...

With every terrorists attack,or mass murder, Trump's numbers go up. How long before Democrats make the obvious connection. Terrorists and murderers support Trump.

pm317 said...

Trump's teleprompter reading skills are rotten.

Darrell said...

Next time Hillary shits her pants, we'll have to ask her.

Balfegor said...

Re: Birkel:

There simply must be a positive reason to vote for Hillary beyond the Will to Power that the Left embraces.

Now that the nomination contest is over, there doesn't have to be a "positive" reason at all.

She herself is comparatively moderate -- she may play act at being an extremist in order to compete against whackos like Obama and Sanders, but that's not really in her character. We all know that she's not really against the Trans-Pacific Partnership: that's just a lie for electoral convenience. And her embrace of radical feminist claptrap is merely (and transparently) tactical. The "woman card" is a convenient tool, close to hand, so why wouldn't she use it? Her instincts certainly aren't conservative -- rather, they are dirigiste -- but they certainly aren't radical either. She embraces radicalism to the extent she perceives some advantage in play-acting at radicalism, but that's all.

So much for the argument against her -- from the leftist whacko perspective. Now for the argument for: the people she will bring into (or leave in) power are, by and large, sympathetic to left-wing moonbattery in a way that Trump's people will not be. So if you like the sort of thing those sorts of people do when they are in power, then you should vote for her.

In a sense, it's the mirror image of why I might vote for Trump. I don't think he will be a particularly good President. He certainly won't govern as a conservative. But he will represent a repudiation of precisely the sort of people a Clinton II victory would leave in power. I find those people detestable. They -- we, really, since I am a self-hating member of that self-same class -- have worked actively to make this country worse: smaller, nastier, crabbed, and unpleasant. Even as they multiply the legalistic pettifoggery of our regulatory state, they support and romanticise violence and criminality and despise the natives, their fellow countrymen, for wanting security. And they are vicious. There is, as the saying goes, a great deal of ruin in a nation, so 4 more years of this nonsense isn't the end of the world, and it's certainly not the case that their efforts would cut off sharply with a Trump victory. But the rebuke to this lot, who have lost their way, is a reason to consider voting Trump.

Just as the perpetuation of this hateful crew is a reason to vote Clinton II.

Susan said...

So guess it is now a bad thing to be able to have Putin doing your bidding?

I remember when getting other nations to help us was a good thing.

mikee said...

Let's all remember that she was named for the first mountain climbers to summit on Everest, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary, who got there five and a half years after her birth. Yes, after. Her parents could tell the future, but were racists unwilling to add "Tenzing" to their daughter's name.

I'd say having prescient parents able to see so far in the future might be a plus for her, especially if Hillary can see the future, too. But that doesn't explain why she was surprised so many times to find out that Bill's infidelities were known publicly so very long before she found out, so now I'm confused about her superpowers.

this must be one of those things you can only understand using doubleplus ungoodthought.

Brando said...

Does this thread actually have more than one "Unknown" now arguing with each other? Very confusing! Maybe we need a few more "Unknowns" to jump in and turn this into a complete smokescreen.

Unknown said...

Brando, it is the reality now. We can either whine and pout or act like adults and act in a cohesive unit to defeat the worse threat to America. Or vote third party and help Trump win.

Unknown said...

I was the first Unknown. The other Unknown plagiarized my name.

Browndog said...

Hillary is trying to force Bernie to personally nominate her. She's not happy with an endorsement, she demands submission.

Public humiliation will be his penance for irritating the Queen's campaign.

buwaya puti said...

Balfegor has it.
We are on the same page.
Its much less about individuals than it is about ruling cliques.
This nations ruin most certainly is the project of a definable group, and they most certainly are identifiable with a political side.
As for permanent damage, dont be so sure. The US is a hop skip and a jump away from an Argentine-like downward slide.

mockturtle said...

I'd rather have Russia as an ally than Saudi Arabia.

buwaya puti said...

As for being a self-hating member of the clique - thats interesting. I wonder about that. Its an unhappy lot, afaik, other than the great prosperity of so many.

Btw, have a look at the Harvard Business Review, May article by James Bessen, on corporate profits largely deriving from regulatory treatment, and etc. government concessions. Regulatory capture in pictures.
Rotten is right, but its all of them.
Even the local trolls.

Larry J said...

Birkel said...
Larry J:

That is not a reason to vote for Hillary. That is a reason to oppose U.S. history up to the present.

Defining a candidacy in such a negative way is decidedly different than previous winners AmErican politics.


In case I wasn't clear, as far as I'm concerned, there is no possible reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents everything I despise about politics in general and Democrats in particular. If Hillary stood before me on voting day, holding a million dollars in one hand and a gun in the other, I still wouldn't vote for her. I care too much about by grandchildren's futures to inflict Hillary on them.

wildswan said...

First we had, "the Russians are coming", from the DNC and its trollistas (Greater and more terrible than before, this time the Russians are using the truth. Don't listen, America.). Then we had "America the greatest country on earth" from Michelle. (Though no American flags)

I suppose the campaign boys think they can build a sort of Morning in America theme and draw in some confused older people still locked on Reagan themes. The only ones they are likely to confuse are their own America-last crowd. Someone will wave an American flag and it will be seized upon and burned before anyone realizes Michelle was holding it.

Chuck said...

AJ Lynch said...
Chuck: every blog seems to have at least one commenter who should seek mental help.


Go fuck yourself. Are you saying that I was incorrect, in pointing out that Trump stole the "I prefer people who weren't captured" line? Is that why you are making the malignant and moderation-worthy "mental health" attack?

Because this is the point I want to shove down your miserable worthless throat, you assclown.

Trump stole the line from last night's star of the show, Al Franken:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/18/donald-trump-offends-mccain-fans-with-ol

Go straight to hell, AJ Lynch.

Tank said...

What does it mean when a troll has a sock puppet?

Yiiiii.

Unknown said...

"I'd rather have Russia as an ally than Saudi Arabia."

Trump's own business ventures with middle eastern countries always seem to be overlooked. What are his business ventures in Russia? Does he owe things to powerful people? How did the Russian banks help him out when no American bank would touch him? What about the close relationship between Russia and Iran. What about the close relationship between Russia and Syria?

Trump Calls On Clinton To Return Clinton Foundation Donations From Saudi Arabia

Trump: “I Am Calling On [Clinton] To Immediately Return The $25 Million Plus” Saudi Arabia Donated To The Clinton Foundation. In a June 13 Facebook post, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump called on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to “immediately return the $25 million plus she got from [Saudi Arabia] for the Clinton Foundation!” [Facebook, 6/13/16]

Fox News Hypes Trump’s Attacks On Clinton Foundation Donations Without Noting Trump’s Middle East Business Ties

Sean Hannity And Newt Gingrich Bash Clinton Foundation Donations Without Mentioning Trump’s Middle East Ventures. On the June 13 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, after Trump wrote his Facebook post criticizing Clinton, host Sean Hannity and Fox contributor Newt Gingrich both criticized the Clinton Foundation for taking “up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia” in donations and “$5 million from countries like Qatar,” with Hannity saying of Clinton, “taking $25 million from Saudi Arabia and not criticizing them, that's disgusting. That's shameful in my mind.” Neither talked about the various business deals Trump has in the Middle East, including in Saudi Arabia. [Fox News, Hannity, 6/13/16]

mockturtle said...

@Chuck: Go fuck yourself

It's one thing telling someone to go fuck himself. It's another thing actually making him do it.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary "Rod 'em" Clinton. The name was chosen before "pegging" became the accepted word.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Chuck "the lifelong Republican" writing checks with his keyboard that his sad old body can't cash.

We've moved past you, skippy, you are no longer relevant. It is our party now.


shiloh said...

"President-Mom-Jeans said...

We've moved past you, skippy, you are no longer relevant."

Indeed, as your reply indicates.

tim in vermont said...

Trump's own business ventures with middle eastern countries always seem to be overlooked. What are his business ventures in Russia? - Unknown


Let's have a look, shall we?

Saudi Arabia

The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation between the time the foundation was created through 2014, and some portion of the funds was contributed in 2014, according to the foundation’s searchable database.
- Politifact

Russia

The following is from Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - The New York Times

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

...

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


Do you really not know this stuff Unknown? Maybe you should change your handle to "Unknowing"?

shiloh said...

"Unknown said...

Let the record show that shiloh ..."

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

mockturtle said...

I don't usually respond to 'Unknowns' but, regarding the above post: Trump was not a government official. Clinton was. Get the difference?

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...
Chuck "the lifelong Republican" writing checks with his keyboard that his sad old body can't cash.

We've moved past you, skippy, you are no longer relevant. It is our party now.


We're going to see about that. You've got Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, who mostly despise Trump. You've got Republican governors like Kasich, Snyder and Martinez who won't be in the same room as Trump. The Republican commentariat loathes everything about Trump, and can hardly wait to scream, "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

If Trump loses in November -- Vegas says he will, right now -- your ilk will be banished from the party for as long as I can see.

Best of all, you'll have no excuses. As with this post, you don't want the Party to help you. You don't want anything to do with the Party. Which is fine. You don't want it and you won't get it. And in the end, you'll have nothing.

If Trump wins, I'll take in the pleasure of the Democrats losing, for whatever that is worth. Then, Trump's fight with congressional Republicans and Democrats alike can begin.

tim in vermont said...

Then, Trump's fight with congressional Republicans and Democrats alike can begin.

Horrors!

Unknown said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/exclusive-russian-mob-linked-fraudster-a-key-player-in-donald-tr/

Donald Trump exclusive: Russian mob-linked fraudster a 'key player' in presidential hopeful's business ventures

A Russian-born fraudster who Donald Trump has claimed he would not recognise was a key player in several of the billionaire's business ventures, the Telegraph can disclose.

Mr Trump signed off on paperwork which made clear that Felix Sater was one of the figures in “control” of Bayrock Group, the property firm building three developments using his name, an investigation has found.

The findings appear to contradict statements by the would-be president and his lawyer, distancing him from Sater, who was convicted for helping to lead a $40 million mafia-linked stock fraud scheme.


Mr Sater also spent time in jail for stabbing someone in the face with the stem of a margarita glass.

The disclosures come as Mr Trump faced criticism after the Telegraph revealed that he signed off on a $50 million business deal involving Bayrock that was designed to deprive the US government of tens of millions of dollars in tax.

edutcher said...

Reagan had to deal with a lot of people who didn't like or trust him, either.

We know how it turned out.

And, if the Rs keep the Senate, it will have Trump to thank. Actually, the NeverTrumpers have gotten the message - we lost, he won. The Rs had a much better convention than Cacklepants.

BTW Kasich is old news. If he was able to deliver OH, he would have done it last time.

Although 20% of the OH voter rolls being bogus probably didn't help.

shiloh said...

Asked and answered. Let's move on, shall we.

Bathtub swabbie can't count on the vote fraud machine this time.

Brando said...

"If Trump wins, I'll take in the pleasure of the Democrats losing, for whatever that is worth. Then, Trump's fight with congressional Republicans and Democrats alike can begin."

Trump winning might be the worst outcome from the standpoint of true blue Trump fans, because when the cold splash of the reality of governing this country runs against his "leadership" style the results may be so pathetic that even the reality-defiers cannot delude themselves. Best bet for them is for him to lose, and blame a combination of Democratic dirty tricks and GOP traitors, and daydream about what might have been, when the soaring rhetoric of a change agent may have moved mountains (if that sounds familiar, congratulations, you remember 2008 when we had version 1.0).

For those grudgingly voting Trump, they likely expect his presidency to be terrible, but will console themselves that Hillary's would have been worse. An unprovable, but not unreasonable conclusion.

For those voting neither, it all doesn't matter any more than who wins the Oscars on the night a meteor destroys the Earth.

For those voting Clinton, they are just hoping their investment pays off.

Brando said...

"Reagan had to deal with a lot of people who didn't like or trust him, either."

Reagan was a pragmatist who made allies easily and knew how to mend bridges with former enemies. He was also good at building party unity and finding allies across the aisle. He demonstrated this in his involvement in several presidential campaigns before he was finally nominated, as well as in two terms as governor of the country's largest state. When Trump demonstrates the same ability, that comparison will be apt.

khesanh0802 said...

@balfegor 1124 Wonderfully put. Throw the bastards out one and all!

tim in vermont said...

Why didn't Hillary keep her promise to notify the Obama Adminstration that while she was SoS, her foundation had received millions in donations from the Russians?

What could her reason for keeping secrets have been?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Crooked Hillary didn't hang quite right, Corrupt Hillary would have been much better. Rotten gets back to corrupt. But, Hillary Rotten Clinton is quite a mouthful. And, Trump's trying to reuse Low Energy on Hillary too, an act of self-plagiarism.

khesanh0802 said...

@Tim in VT Good stuff @ 1210!

Brando said...

"Crooked Hillary didn't hang quite right, Corrupt Hillary would have been much better. Rotten gets back to corrupt. But, Hillary Rotten Clinton is quite a mouthful. And, Trump's trying to reuse Low Energy on Hillary too, an act of self-plagiarism."

Rotten works best as it plays on what most people suspect about her--her corruption--and what many are beginning to suspect and may catch on--her incompetence.

"Low energy" doesn't make sense, as people don't really think of Hillary as low key or sleepy. Plus, being low key could be a selling point if she's trying to argue that Trump is a manic insane man. Hell, I'd sort of like a "low key" person making prudent and thought out decisions.

Sell the incompetence--it works and it'll stick.

Unknown said...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/news/donald-trump-muslim-countries-business/

Presidential candidate Donald Trump may want to ban Muslims entering the U.S. but he's making millions from business deals in countries where Islam is the main religion.

In his latest personal financial disclosure required by all candidates, and on his web site, Trump lists various interests in the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Turkey, and two new ventures in Indonesia.

Trump filed his income statement in July, and amended it in August. Here's what he declared in predominately Muslim countries:


AJ Lynch said...

Chuck - I didn't ask you to verify my clinical diagnosis of you but you did anyway. So thanks for that.

And I am not disputing any of your factual claims - I am questioning your intense compulsion to beat this blog over the head time and again with anti-Trump arguments. Most of us here get it - you just don't care for Trump.

buwaya puti said...

I was just reading the transcript of Elizabeth Warrens speech - I didnt watch that, so this is the first I've seen it.
Its just -strange-
Leaving aside the partisan personal attacks and such, which are to be expected -
Its as if she was blind to her surroundings, paid for by the donors for which she expresses such deep hatred. Its like she was speaking from another dimension. This isnt a set of lies, as such, it is an entirely backward outlook. She does not simply make false statements, individual denial of facts, its rather that her entire life seems to ignore reality.

JAORE said...

Unknown said... I was the first Unknown. The other Unknown plagiarized my name.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
- Donald Rumsfeld

khesanh0802 said...

Unknown @ 1218 Remember Bill Clinton denied a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers but surprise it was not true. See William McGurn in the WSJ here. That Trump could not remember a guy he had indirect dealings with is nothing to be worried about. That Satter/Sater was a crumb bum is not Trump's fault.

Unknown said...

BP,
It only seemed that way to you because you are so far removed from reality.

AJ Lynch said...

Warren, who has one of only 100 US Senate seats, runs around yelling the system is rigged. It is fair to say Warren maneuvered her way up and through that exact same system to be where she is today. I wonder if she ever sees the irony in her screeches.

buwaya puti said...

Granted Warren has speechwriters and such, but all this had to be run past her. It does coincide perfectly with her previous political positions and rhetoric. But under these circumstances, the sheer disconnect from the context - she is not stupid, but simply not right in the head.
Im not surprised she didnt run, after realizing this.

khesanh0802 said...

byway puti The limousine liberals of Boston fall all over her while she speaks like she's going have them all dragged out and hung. It does make you wonder!

buwaya puti said...

My profession is, as it happens, dealing with reality. Physical objects and their capacities and failures. Engineers may have problems understanding (some) people, but reality is not a problem.
We tend to get puzzled and upset when other people have difficulties with math and physics, not to mention logic and mechanisms.

Nonapod said...

With regards to potential foreign influence from shady sources, the evidence of Trump's sins is far less damning than the evidence of Hillary's sins. As mockturtle already pointed out, Trump is not a government official. A private businessman who has investments in areas all over the world is far less sinister than a Secretary of State who uses her office for personal enrichment by selling off influence to the highest bidder.

buwaya puti said...

Warrens speech is something like someone holding the leashes of a pack of wolves, reviling their savage nature, promising to save the people from them, while they gambol happily at her feet.

mikee said...

Warren is using the progressive ideal that not only must the public be lied to, not only must the public be made to accept the lies, but the lies have to be so flagrantly unbelievable as to require total humiliation of the public that is forced to believe them, to parrot them, to live them.

And remember, she was talking to her own party. The leadership of the Dems demands this humiliating submission from their own followers, first and foremost. The rest of us will be subjugated in good time, but right now the Party itself must be made to grovel.

This becomes a problem the first time, after Hillary is elected, that some small child shrieks out that the Empress Has No Clothes, and the rest of the country comes to its senses and vomits at the reality of her. It won't be pretty.

Brando said...

"With regards to potential foreign influence from shady sources, the evidence of Trump's sins is far less damning than the evidence of Hillary's sins. As mockturtle already pointed out, Trump is not a government official. A private businessman who has investments in areas all over the world is far less sinister than a Secretary of State who uses her office for personal enrichment by selling off influence to the highest bidder."

I for one am glad that no matter what happens this fall, Putin will have a very pliable president to do his bidding.

edutcher said...

Brando said...

Reagan had to deal with a lot of people who didn't like or trust him, either.

Reagan was a pragmatist who made allies easily and knew how to mend bridges with former enemies. He was also good at building party unity and finding allies across the aisle


You mean like Trump did at the convention and since?

So you're the moron April is always quoting. Bet 5 months ago you were saying he'd never win a primary.

eric said...

You can always tell a particular unknown by the way he copies and pastes, as if he has something.

Because Democrats like their media organs and like to pretend they have any credibility left.

AprilApple said...

ed is a moron.

Yancey Ward said...

I don't think "dark" is all that effective if a good majority of the country does think the country is on the wrong track. You have to remember, if you are actually old enough to do so- in 1984 when Reagan ran with Dawn in America, the mood of the country was upbeat. One of the reasons that Mondale lost so badly was his negativism in the face of that. Hoping Trump fails for the same reason requires a change in attitude from the country itself.

However, Hillary Rotten Clinton works better as a kill shot because it fits with a majority's view of her, and it is a strong word play on her actual name.

AprilApple said...

@ Brando

"Reagan was a pragmatist who made allies easily and knew how to mend bridges with former enemies. He was also good at building party unity and finding allies across the aisle. He demonstrated this in his involvement in several presidential campaigns before he was finally nominated, as well as in two terms as governor of the country's largest state. When Trump demonstrates the same ability, that comparison will be apt.'

Indeed.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"The limousine liberals of Boston fall all over her while she speaks like she's going have them all dragged out and hung. It does make you wonder!"

Not without historical precedent, certainly. The streak of masochism that runs through affluent liberals has always been a wonder to me. An under-examined psychological phenomenon.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Presidential candidate Donald Trump may want to ban Muslims entering the U.S. but he's making millions from business deals in countries where Islam is the main religion"

Hillary has taken millions in bribes from countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Glad you're with her!

Trump can squeeze Muzzies all day long so long as he keeps them out of the U.S.

walter said...

All it takes is one of these unknowns to adopt an end tag on their posts.
C'mon YOU CAN DO IT!
Maybe the power(s) that be here can demand it.
Post deletions have been done for less annoying reasons.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Because this is the point I want to shove down your miserable worthless throat, you assclown."

Is Chuck the noted Lifelong-Republican and famous Cyber-Pugilist at it again?

Chuck said...

Brando it is scary how much I agree with you, even when I'd rather not.

Trump winning might be the worst outcome from the standpoint of true blue Trump fans, because when the cold splash of the reality of governing this country runs against his "leadership" style the results may be so pathetic that even the reality-defiers cannot delude themselves.

It's true. Even if I liked Trump, every common sense impulse informs me that he's not going to build a border wall, and Mexico is not going to pay for it. He's not going to repeal ObamaCare (and I don't think that 'Mr. I-like-Canadian-single-payer-plans' actually wants to mess around with health care anyway). He's not going to do anything about campaign finance reform, and he's not going to pass a massive tax on U.S. automakers who operate assembly plants in Mexico.

The things that Trump claims he'd do as President; he'll never do them. The things he should do, he's not even talking about them.

Rick said...

Unknown said...
Presidential candidate Donald Trump may want to ban Muslims entering the U.S. but he's making millions from business deals in countries where Islam is the main religion.


This criticism would make no sense coming from someone on the right. The right's objections to Muslim immigration are either/both (1) that we cannot distinguish between Muslim terrorists (and their ancestors) and other Muslims and therefore we should keep them all out, and (2) their worldview is profoundly different from ours and includes far less support for freedom and democracy (among other things) required for our society to prosper. Obviously doing business in a Muslim country has zero impact on these positions.

So why is CNN presenting this as a contradiction and their acolytes cheering as if a debate point were won? Ultimately it's because they have no understanding of the right. They actually believe opposition to everything they want to do is driven by racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia. So they present this under the belief people on the right will care. The lack of the expected response should trigger CNN et al to reevaluate their understanding of the right. But instead we see accusations of hypocrisy as if failing to confirm the left's caricature is a character flaw of the right.

Unknown#1 said...

OK Walter, because I like you.

The Cracker Emcee said...

True. Essentially the Left is saying people shouldn't be doing business with Muzzies.

walter said...

There ya go! Yayy! ;)

AJ Lynch said...

Campaign finance reform? Sounds like something only a librul would deem a priority.

Sebastian said...

@Chuck: "The things that Trump claims he'd do as President; he'll never do them. The things he should do, he's not even talking about them." Correct. He'll never do the things he claims he'd do, depending on what the meaning of "claims" is. He's not even talking about the things he should so, but in view of his ideological flexibility there's a decent chance he'll do some of them. This should give #NeverTrumpers pause, if not comfort. Because Trump is very unlikely to do the things they most dislike and is likely to do some of the things they like, they can vote for Trump with a clear conscience.

rightguy2 said...

I think rotten sticks like glue to Hillary. She is rotten to the core. So is her HINO.

buwaya puti said...

Everyone in the Fortune 1000 (and plenty of small businesses too) has been dealing with Muslim countries since whats now BP and Shell and the US Aramco consortium started giving them a large income in the 1930s.
For certain, every single one of the Democratic party's corporate financial backers have had such dealings.

Balfegor said...

Re: AJ Lynch:

Campaign finance reform? Sounds like something only a librul would deem a priority.

If Trump's campaign has shown us anything, it's that campaign finance is not anywhere near as important as activists seem to think it is. If it were, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee for president. And, for that matter, Clinton II would be crushing Trump in the polls, given that she's spent like $50 million in anti-Trump advertising already, and he's spent almost nothing at all, and barely even has a campaign organisation.

Obviously, you need some money, but it's not a machine where you pour more money in and you get more votes out on the other end. "Throw money at it" is politicians' classic solution to any problem, but it doesn't actually work.

steve uhr said...

The Clinton Foundation received millions from Muslim countries and people have rightly questioned whether that influenced her decision making at State. One can make the same argument re Donald doing business with the same countries. Maybe it is a negotiation tactic to get more favorable treatment for his Middle East business interests.

steve uhr said...

By "it", I mean his anti-Muslim rhetoric

Brando said...

"You mean like Trump did at the convention and since?"

I must have missed all that unity when he used the day after his convention to still go on about Cruz's father being involved in JFK's assassination. Or maybe Reagan did the same when he suggested George Bush's father planned the Pearl Harbor attack?

"So you're the moron April is always quoting. Bet 5 months ago you were saying he'd never win a primary."

Wrong again--just because I saw no reason to celebrate Trump's wins does not mean I thought they weren't possible. Just like I think it's possible for him to win the general election.

"The things that Trump claims he'd do as President; he'll never do them. The things he should do, he's not even talking about them."

That's why anyone buying what this orange con man says is setting themselves up to be the latest of his many suckers. (And considering the long, long list of people conned by him it's a testament to his con man skills--the one thing he seems actually good at, until we have proof of his actual wealth and income from some source other than his lying mouth) But then there are the "yeah, he's a crook but so is Hillary and maybe he'll flop around and not do much damage" Trump voters. They may be taking a big risk with him--even if he's incompetent at governing, he can still do a lot of damage, as can Hillary--but at least they're going in knowing the risk.

walter said...

"people have rightly questioned whether that influenced her decision making at State. One can make the same argument re Donald doing business with the same countries."

A bit of a stretch. Very different kind of "deals"

buwaya puti said...

Money doesnt work so well for SOME campaigns.
There are other recent cases, like Cantors primary failure.
Under the right circumstances the public mood is such that it is less effective. On the other hand, one has to wonder where the current campaign would be if Clinton werent spending so heavily, or if Trump were matching her spending.

Will Cate said...

It is also a Shakespearean political word: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." -- Marcellus, Hamlet, Act 1

steve uhr said...

Walter - You are naive if you think Trump doesn't ever consider the impact of his statements on his businesses.

steve uhr said...

And he will continue to do so if he is elected because his businesses will be run by his kids. He should be forced to sell them to the highest bidder.

Sebastian said...

@Brando: "They may be taking a big risk with him--even if he's incompetent at governing, he can still do a lot of damage, as can Hillary--but at least they're going in knowing the risk." How Trump and Hill govern depends on the people they bring in. Trump knows nothing about most areas. Hillary "pls print" Clinton is "often confused," as Huma said. Trump will bring in mostly GOPers. He will nominate mostly GOP judges. Hill will do the opposite. On that basis, though Trump undoubtedly would piss off conservatives half the time, and make some disastrous mistakes, the relative risk is not great. Of course, with Trump, assessing risk is itself risky, hence no one can go in "knowing" the risk.

William Chadwick said...

So she changed it from "Rodham" to "Ratched."

tim in vermont said...

Trump tries to earn money in Muslim countries by doing business. Hillary demands "donations" for favors that she only has the power to bestow because the country entrusted her with a position of authority.

The biggest favor she has done for Arab nations in particular is to kill Keystone XL. Yes, it was her decision as SoS.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
Trump tries to earn money in Muslim countries by doing business. Hillary demands "donations" for favors that she only has the power to bestow because the country entrusted her with a position of authority.

The biggest favor she has done for Arab nations in particular is to kill Keystone XL. Yes, it was her decision as SoS.


But that is yet another Clinton lie, right? Her head told her to support Keystone, and she did -- at first. Only the Dem polling and pressure that she reluctantly caved on, made her oppose it. Right? I don't follow Mrs. Clinton very ardently. Not my side. But am I mistaken about those essentials?

Just like TPP. Everything she knows tells her to support it. Right? She's caving to her party's politics on that. Right?

Guildofcannonballs said...

"until we have proof of his actual wealth and income from some source other than his lying mouth"

So you lied about watching the convention?

Or is your memory not like Trumps, but your self-image much larger than Trump's nonetheless?

tim in vermont said...

I don't believe for a minute that Clinton supported Keystone based on the merits, or opposed it based on the merits. I think she supported or opposed it based on her own positioning for personal power.

Jon Ericson said...

Our very own "unknown" (non-schizophrenic )
has a blogger profile of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx69,

(Just in case any more "unknowns" pop up)

hover over blue "handle" and in lower left of my screen I see profile #.
Can be handy this election season. log em'!

tim in vermont said...

That's why anyone buying what this orange con man says is setting themselves up to be the latest of his many suckers

I don't think that half his followers are true believers, if that. I think they want a man you will fight, and they believe that. I believe that. I don't think he is the best man for the fight, but nobody else seemed willing to rile the Clinton machine in any serious way.

walter said...

Steve,
Just saying there's a significant difference between a businessman in a pretty standard category of business vs Clinton, Inc.
What would you propose Hillary do to remove external influence?

StephenFearby said...

Last gasp "stateable case" Deus Ex Machina:


STU BURGUIERE

#Bailout2016 — the election bailout plan that could save us from both Trump and Hillary


[Throwing the election into the House of Representatives by running Romney as an independent in a few deep red states (like Utah, Wyoming & Idaho).

He might well be the favorite in those states.

House has the right to choose any of the top three finishers.

https://medium.com/autonomous/bailout2016-the-election-bailout-plan-that-could-save-us-from-both-trump-and-hillary-63c9d42f5cf2#.yuiammsr7


tim in vermont said...

I like that there are two unknowns. It undermines the crazy one. You never really know if it is her or a parody. Especially since the desperate attempt to deflect from the DNC leak and the seamy underside of the Democrat machine politics that have been on display.

buwaya puti said...

On Keystone - actually Keystone XL
It was slow-walked to death by the Obama admin. Mechanism for doing so was both the EPA and the State Dept, ultimately Obama vetoed legislation to override the agencies and killed it for good last year. I belueve it was deliberately kept dangling by the Obama administration as a political McGuffin, and so also is Canadian opinion on this.
This is a good example of the power of the executive agencies and the pointlessness of Congress.

Gahrie said...

If Romney somehow ends up as president (and I will admit it is possible) there will be bodies hanging from lampposts......

Jon Ericson said...

@tim in vermont:
But last night someone mistook ol'69's
slightly tongue in cheek comment
for ol'55's Schitzophrenic ones.
Hilarity did not ensue. But I get your point

steve uhr said...

Walter -- Not get elected.

walter said...

Blind trust vs blind trust

Unknown#1 said...

How's this for Party unity?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288940-report-trump-to-create-super-pac-to-attack-cruz-kasich

"Donald Trump is reportedly planning on bankrolling super-PACs that would oppose Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), two of his former primary opponents who snubbed him during the party’s convention this week.

Bloomberg, citing one unidentified source, reported the Republican candidate’s plans to target Cruz's and Kasich's future campaigns on Friday.
The source said that Trump would be willing to invest $20 million or more into the project, which could involve one or two super-PACs.

Trump signaled such a plan in a speech on Friday morning, the day after the close of the convention, while blasting Cruz for refusing to endorse him in remarks before the convention Wednesday night."

buwaya puti said...

Re Keystone - I see Transcanada is suing the US govt under NAFTA for $15B over Keystone XL.

Unknown#1 said...

How's this for Party unity?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/286034-trump-rivals-who-dont-back-me-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-run-for

"Donald Trump on Wednesday hammered his former primary rivals for going back on a pledge to back the eventual GOP presidential nominee.

Trump said his primary opponents who now refuse to support his candidacy should not be allowed to run for office in the future, since they've gone back on their word.

“It was a rough campaign, and I wasn’t nice, but they weren’t nice either,” the presumptive GOP nominee said at a rally in Bangor, Maine.

“Honestly, you sign a pledge, you’re supposed to honor the pledge,” he continued.

Trump called them “really sore losers” and said they only signed the pledge so he would do so as well.

"They broke their word, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for office again ... because what they did is disgraceful.""

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
narciso said...

I called it the Canadian Menace, just as TransCanada ventured where the majors wouldn't, re Alaska, the Dems eliminate any competition to the gulf states, who have funded red queen, as well the medici's family, the bushes if the parallel isn't clear,

Jon Ericson said...

Got your attention didn't it?

Guildofcannonballs said...

http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires

Qwinn said...

Um, yes, they signed the pledge so he would too. Perfectly legit. Called a reciprocal agreement. And then Trump bailed on it, months ago, which let all the others off the hook. Completely and utterly. I wish people would stop pretending there's any gray area at all in that. There isn't.

gadfly said...

Fortune says that T-rump is worth $3.9 billion but Trump says the number is $10 billion while Forbes shows $4.5 billion. The proof is in the tax returns but no supporters want to insist that he show his tax returns. So Trump is obviously lying yet again.

Wilbur said...

I played golf with Hillary!'s brother a couple of times several years ago. Nice enough fellow on the course, sorta' quiet, a reasonably good player. He's had his share of ethical challenges in the years since then.

It never occurred to me to call him Hughie Rotten. His sister, OTOH, would get off lucky with only being called "Rotten".

And no one dares play golf for stakes with her HINO. Obviously glib, super-personality, but by universal rep the cheatingist SOB who ever teed it up. He's not well suited for a game involving honor and self-imposed penalties.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Trump knows you don't allow affronts to go unpunished. Cruz and Kasich (and Bush but that's not necessary) *should* feel some consequence. I think Rubio actually honored his pledge? Or at least is not on the radar.

n.n said...

Out, damned spot!

Fabi said...

Great job building that big tent of voters, Really Retarded Republican Chuck! Seek mental evaluation and care, sweetie -- you've really lost it.

Unknown#1 said...

Good to know we can't try to "out" other commenters here. I hope that holds true for everybody.

walter said...

gadfly said..The proof is in the tax returns
--
Maybe..but tax returns rarely reveal net worth.

walter said...

But how bizarre we have candidates damned for being both too rich and not rich enough. ;)

Jon Ericson said...

My doc sez I gotta stay away from the excitable
crowd, for my B.P..

Man, election time really brings out the excitement!

"Scroll finger readiness soldier!
Sir, Extreme, Sir!

Jon Ericson said...

@Sweeie#1
You are a cannon fodder.
Earlier "newcomers" tried a bunch of tactics here.
They gave up.

Jon Ericson said...

scratch the "a".

AJ Lynch said...

Balfegor - you added more good arguments against campaign finance reform. Thx

Alex said...

Neener neener I called you a name. what is this the schoolyard?

Jon Ericson said...

@alex

?

cubanbob said...

gadfly said...
Fortune says that T-rump is worth $3.9 billion but Trump says the number is $10 billion while Forbes shows $4.5 billion. The proof is in the tax returns but no supporters want to insist that he show his tax returns. So Trump is obviously lying yet again.

7/26/16, 3:09 PM

Speaking of tax returns I would like to see the returns for the Clinton's and their foundation.

Terry said...

Gadfly wrote:
So Trump is obviously lying yet again.

If you won't vote for a liar, you are going to stay home on election day, Gadfly.
Unless, like me, you vote Constitution Party. Darrell Castle, presidential candidate. Oldest, whitest man that you have ever seen. Look 'em up, they combine the best of Republican and Libertarian principles.

Terry said...

Blogger cubanbob said...
Speaking of tax returns I would like to see the returns for the Clinton's and their foundation.

7/26/16, 4:58 PM


A family controlled charitable foundation is the American equivalent of a title of nobility.

cubanbob said...

Terry said...
Blogger cubanbob said...
Speaking of tax returns I would like to see the returns for the Clinton's and their foundation.

7/26/16, 4:58 PM

A family controlled charitable foundation is the American equivalent of a title of nobility.

7/26/16, 5:13 PM"

Being a director of a family controlled charitable foundation I have a passing acquaintance on the matter. I really would like to see the financials and tax returns of the Clinton Family Foundation.

narciso said...

what have they been doing, stuff like in haiti and libya and in this local

https://world.wng.org/tags/the_clintons_and_nigeria

this affects policy,

Drago said...

Chuck: "But that is yet another Clinton lie, right? Her head told her to support Keystone, and she did -- at first. Only the Dem polling and pressure that she reluctantly caved on, made her oppose it. Right? I don't follow Mrs. Clinton very ardently. Not my side"

LOL

Jon Ericson said...

"If Trump wins he will have to pardon her or turn the State against him. He can use her as a bargaining chip to get rid of Obama's moles and cooperation where he can. She is not going down in any case."
Anonny Mouse # richardfernandez

Guildofcannonballs said...

"And then Trump bailed on it, months ago, which let all the others off the hook."

What do you imagine Trump's response would be to this, a guilty plea?

To start, Trump didn't bail on the damn pledge, he obviously is supporting himself, you know, the nominee.

Secondly, when talking about a rigged system wth back room deals and delegates not being voted on without worse-than-a-poll tax in Colorado, Trump left himself flexibility to win. If he was cheated he wouldn't have ruled out a third party run of some variation. He said things aren't right and he wasn't going to run the risk of polarity from the campaign without committing to a flawed yet successful Making of America Great Again.

Last, the claim if Trump does it then it's a freeforall for everybody else places Trump as superior to those supposed to be his peers, or even betters politically.

Hate him all you want, it worked.

Tell yourself he is stupid and you are smart and oh yeah also his daddy gave him money so you hate the spoiled jerk 'cause he don't know nothing about nothing, unlike you.

Jon Ericson said...

GOC, very good screed. *applause*

Paco Wové said...

What I find most interesting about the commentary at Althouse is that it appears as though the two commenters who best understand the current political situation of the United States are "outsiders", and if I understand correctly, non-citizens – Balfegor and Buwaya [Puti]. Almost everybody else here (and elsewhere) seems to be caught up in can't-see-forest-for-trees minutiae. Balfegor's 11:24 comment is a fine example. I salute you, sirs!

narciso said...

as may have been ascertained from my handle, I wasn't born here, but I came very young,

Anglelyne said...

Paco: What I find most interesting about the commentary at Althouse is that it appears as though the two commenters who best understand the current political situation of the United States are "outsiders", and if I understand correctly, non-citizens – Balfegor and Buwaya [Puti]. Almost everybody else here (and elsewhere) seems to be caught up in can't-see-forest-for-trees minutiae. Balfegor's 11:24 comment is a fine example. I salute you, sirs!

Second that.

As for permanent damage, dont be so sure. The US is a hop skip and a jump away from an Argentine-like downward slide.

That's the better-case scenario.

Anglelyne said...

buwaya puti: Its like [Warren] was speaking from another dimension. This isnt a set of lies, as such, it is an entirely backward outlook. She does not simply make false statements, individual denial of facts, its rather that her entire life seems to ignore reality.

Lot of that going around.

When did "not even wrong" become applicable to politics?

tim in vermont said...

This isnt a set of lies, as such, it is an entirely backward outlook. She does not simply make false statements, individual denial of facts, its rather that her entire life seems to ignore reality.

Google "Women's ways of knowing." Women, by an large, according to one large study anyway, distrust intellectual analysis (Which is fine, it sure has its flaws) but simply trust their gut to be infallible(Which is ridiculous.) Look a Hillary "Laws don't apply to me" Clinton.

Qwinn said...

GOC: Um, Trump bailed on the pledge before he knew he'd be the nominee. He went on the record to say he would *not* necessarily support the eventual nominee if it wasn't him (and facepalm on your "but it was him!" rebuttal). Now, do I think Trump deserves vilification for backing out of that pledge? Not really. But do I think there's any way to say Cruz *does* deserve vilification and Trump does not? No. It's utterly hypocritical and inconsistent. It's like two guys make a contract, trading a car for a horse, the guy with the car decides to keep the car and then screams bloody murder that the other guy didnt deliver the horse which makes him a liar liar liar! Complete bullshit, and Trump does deserve vilification for even trying that, as do the supporters like you playing along with it.

Qwinn said...

Actually, a better analogy woud be a bet. Two men bet on a horse race. Halfway through the race, one guy backs out of the bet. Then he wins. And demands the other guy pay up as if he never backed out of it. Total bullshit.

Unknown said...

I believe Trump's later remarks about The Pledge reflected the apparent inequities being inflicted upon him by certain, shall we say, opaque processes of the campaign for the nomination. In gambling parlance, if you find you're being cheated, you may refuse to pay.