Hey, you're right.
I did miss it. Despite monitoring the news continually, I did not notice there was an event to be watched on NBC tonight. I guess it wasn't different from other TV interviews except that one candidate appeared right after the other. The moderator was Matt Lauer.
Based on the above-linked article (in the NYT), nothing new and notable was said.
७ सप्टेंबर, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११७ टिप्पण्या:
Hillary's brazen lying to the audience and to Matt Lauer was awe inspiring. I give her credit, she has NO sense of shame whatsoever. Trump was meh.
">>>nothing new and notable was said."
The Guy Who Tries Unsuccessfully to Start Catch-Phrases says:
Althouse, this post is 'Wet With Flavor.'
The Flavor is dripping, because it is Wet.
I am Laslo.
Lauer shamed himself with long speeches accusing Trump of incompetence when he wasn't defending Hillary with made up or twisted facts.
Crazy man Trump was accused over and over of saying he knows more than the Generals do about defeating Isis. He doubled down and said not all Generals but the ones Obama and Hillary had cooped for politics first making the top General corps into rubble.
Later pretended not to understand that, but all listening Americans did understand it.
One of those events that will change the minds of 24 undecideds and raise the bloodpressure of 95 per cent of the audience--hard core partisans. Still a month early for the low information voters in swing states that matter at this point.
Why can't I find the event on line in full video form?
@traditionalguy
Yes, I saw a clip of some of that and it seemed really unprofessional. I guess I'm glad I didn't put myself in the position of having to listen to that. Later was cutting in and interrupting just to badger Trump, not letting him answer. Why didn't Lauer at least try to look neutral?
Lauer let Hillary yammer on and on. Occasionally he would try to cut her short, but he never interrupted her. Unlike with Trump where Lauer would ask a question and just when Trump tried to answer he would interrupt, argue and talk OVER Trump.
Two different modes of questioning. One respectful and the other combative and disrespectful. No surprise here though.
@ Althouse
Here is a link to the videos Conservative Tree House
The Guy Who Tries Unsuccessfully to Start Catch-Phrases says:
Althouse, this post is 'Wet With Flavor.'
'Moist' was a funny word for awhile.
HaHa, I hate the word 'moist', people said, sharing a joke in the ether.
But: "Wet With Flavor."
It works regardless of the word you emphasize, or whether you do not emphasize any at all.
WET with flavor.
Wet WITH flavor.
Wet with FLAVOR.
Don't be the one saying it six months from now when the world has already moved on.
I am Laslo.
AA, Here's what happened.
Trump took charge, and demonstrated that he's a leader.
Hillary continued her lying.
Speaking of blood pressure, Trump's face and even his eyes were bright red. He looked like he was going to stroke out. Also how is it he reveals what went on in his security briefing, he "read the body language" of the CIA briefer as indicating they thought Obama and Hillary did something wrong? WTF? And again with the strange love affair with Putin, beyond strange. So Trump thinks the Generals "have been reduced to rubble"? He thinks he can redo how the Generals get promoted? If this is how he does in the debates, Clinton will win in a monumental landslide. Trump conducted himself extremely poorly.
Why didn't Lauer at least try to look neutral?
Perhaps he thought he was not merely looking neutral, but being neutral?
Trump has a plan to defeat ISIS! Ask the Generals to give him a plan in 30 days time after he becomes President and then see if it matches his "plan". Unbelievable.
Generals are promoted for, very often, and almost always its factor, political reasons. It's not new, this is typical. Douglas MacArthurs whole career is a case in point.
The Obama administration has been doing just that, favpring compatible and compliant generals who won't rock the boat. Many of the passed over and sidelined ones are on Trumps list of 88 retired general officers backing him.
One of Trump's Generals, Flynn sat at the same table as Putin at some affair shortly after he retired. Again, WTF? Why does Trump daily now praise Putin, even more than he did before? What does he owe to Putin?
"Trump's face and even his eyes were bright red."
I only saw clips, but I noticed that, too. Some folks joke that he is supposedly orange, but he never looked too orange to me. Maybe some fake tanner, or actual fake and bake, but I didn't see orange. However, the red was undeniable today.
Anywho, It's nice to hear that the cons here, and Althouse, are reacting by declaring that Trump was either brilliant or sucker punched or brilliant and sucker punched.
"Take the oil." And, being brilliant and ready for the trick question that asks how: "You leave a certain group behind." Check and mate! Slam Dunkity Dunkster! "MAGA"
"Many of the passed over and sidelined ones are on Trumps list of 88 retired general officers backing him."
Is it odd that Romney had 500, and DJT is stuck at 88? Even HRC has more than 88. Anywho, at least there are 88 generals who are not the rubble embarrassments that DJT referred to today.
Matt Lauer asked Clinton plenty of tough questions, quit with the whining that he was unfair to Trump, what rubbish.
Hey! Unknown showed up. Maybe she'll tell us if she believes Hillary really thought (c) was for alphabetizing paragraphs.
Well first off, as Cruz was and is a helluva fighter, so have been men such as Will and Goldberg.
They done good, ain't nobody ought be a forgettin' that. Now that their times have passed safely into that sweet night, in fact gratitude for their grace of power foregoing-abilities, to the Left and now right, can be logically considered admirable-ish.
"Why does Trump daily now praise Putin, even more than he did before? What does he owe to Putin?"
It'd be hard to top his previous Putin praise:
“He also is a person that kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not,” Scarborough asked.
“Our country does plenty of killing also Joe,” Trump replied. “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.”
Scarborough replied incredulously, “Again he kills journalists who don’t agree with him?”
“Well, our country does plenty of killing also Joe, so you know,” Trump followed-up, before declaring that there’s “a lot of killing going on, a lot of stupidity” in the world.
http://time.com/4154624/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-killing/
Actually we were quite surprised that Lauer did ask Clinton actual hard questions. They were good and pertinent question. That was good.
The difference is that he let her stand up and pontificate and didn't interrupt her other than to try to get her to close up (stop going on and on and on) and let another question in. He didn't challenge her, argue with her, talk over her like he did with Trump
One segment was respectful the other combative and frankly rude. It was obvious that he was baiting Trump and handling Hillary with kid gloves. Two completely different approaches. But...hey... I guess that is what we expect from a partisan operative.
What sort of presidency will Hillary have since no one really believes a thing she says? I was thinking that as I was watching her tonight pile lie upon lie on her email debacle. I mean, what do we get out of hiring this duplicitous scum bag? At least Nixon was competent and I was glad he was as devious as fuck with the commies. But with Hillary? All we get is a thieving scum bag who has no problem lying to our face about anything big or small. No thanks. I'll vote for that orange freak in a heart beat.
DBQ,
Did they ask DJT about his justifying Putin's killing of journalists by saying we kill folks too?
BTW, would it be rude to ask the folks who are defenders of Trump if they were also Palinites? Tradguy = big time. Althouse = yes. DBQ, were you also convinced that poor old, brilliant Palin was being picked on?
Why is Trump held to a different standard? No, not a harsher one, an easier one. Lauer was in no way rude to either Clinton or Trump. If Trump can't stand the heat he needs to get out of the kitchen, before he really does stroke out. He truly looked unwell tonight. What the heck will he do in a debate with Clinton? Keel over? My guess is he will make himself out to be even a bigger know nothing than many of us already suspected. His poor performance will be reflected in the polls in a few days, I suspect.
"Duplicitous scum"? Oh you are referring to Trump and the Bondi play for pay scandal. Right.
I guess that would be, "no comment".
"His poor performance will be reflected in the polls in a few days, I suspect."
Palin's fans stuck w/ her for years after the election. Then, most of them, came to see what everyone else always knew. Likewise, it'll take more than November before the Trumpeters see the light. Lucky for them, and America, they're a minority of the folks who vote every four years. The rest of us are less slow on the uptake.
Maybe Scott Adams can explain why so many of you took so long to understand that the questioning was, if anything, too soft.
Presumably all y'all who were (are?) strong Palin apologists were some of the best examples of folks who have strong opinions that are completely unmoored to reality.
The "well" ain't been off firstly literally.
But that ain't the same as saying the "Well" and you know I hate hate hate "you know" locutions so ya figured ya got me pegged.
That bleeding ass proves something.
Trump apologists 2016 = Palin apologists 2008. It be interesting to look at the overlap. Tradguy is a solid data point. Likewise Althouse.
ol' '55 is back!
She's the one who tried to suck Ballboy (further) to the dark side!
She's not quite as dumb as the others.
Actually, more like "I don't have the integrity to say "yes, I know she's lying"".
Neutral is a nice buzzword, one which the media love to use, but the word only has meaning in an objective sense, while most people are subjective. It's sort of like the undecided voter, who exists in the run-up to an election and is highly fought over with millions of campaign expenditures - yet in the end ceases to exist when the final poll is taken.
The problem for Lauer and most of the media is that they aren't really neutral when it comes to politics and as the academic and journalistic landscape has become more heavily one-sided, it is difficult to have the perspective needed for professional journalism if one has never been exposed to different ways of thinking, which nowadays may require a trigger warning, a fainting couch, a psychiatrist, a personal injury lawyer, a viral social media post, the media devoting a whole news cycle to it, and the ritual sacrifice of somebody to appease the wrath of the mob.
I think we will look back on this time in a few years and it will still be inexplicable as to what Althouse and Tradguy saw in Trump.
Surely it's not asking too much for the Palin apologists from 2008 to express some sort of disclaimer before they tell us how poor old Trump in 2016 is being picked on just as they warned us that poor old Palin was being picked on in 2008.
In the free market of ideas, like all free markets, it's important to know who's had epic failures.
See, pretty sneaky.
Brown eyes.
PBJ, I've nothing against the woman personally, but when McCain brought her our I knew the left would go beserk and he'd lose. So no, I've never "defended" her as far as that election goes.
I'm not even necessarily "defending" Trump, what I'm defending is my country. Hillary would be the final nail in the coffin of a once-exceptional republic. Trump (hopefully) will be the anti-venom to the progressive poison that has been spreading for too many years.
I should note I started out strongly supporting Cruz, but it became apparent very quickly he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to even come close to a win in the general. I now despise him for his petulant refusal to support the R nominee. (And even if he did so now, it's far too late, and wouldn't make any difference anyhow. He'd just look like a pandering a-hole.)
As much as Cruz seemed like a jerk at times, he in the end stood on principle, have to give him credit for that.
(c)?
Turning into a moby, right before our eyes.
Good strategy!
Hillary has to go down to the bitter end with all her incoherent lies about her email. One thing that kills me the most is she says "I take full responsibility for my mistake" What does that even mean? She's hasn't and won't pay any meaningful price unless the country has the good sense to deny her the presidency. I wish she would stop saying that as it only underscores her sense of entitlement and belief in her invincibility.
[c] = confidential
"I take full responsibility for my mistake".
Politicians learned years ago this simple phrase is a "get out of jail free card.". It means squat.
My thanks to Jon Podhoretz in the NY Post for boiling down the election to its base problem:
So Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appeared one after the other last night for a half-hour on NBC to talk about being commander in chief. Polls will tell us who “won”; frankly, I have no idea.
But overall, America lost, big time.
Listening to Clinton prevaricate about her emails and Trump prevaricate about positions he holds and doesn’t entirely seem to understand once again raises the unholy horror of the fact that out of 330 million people in the United States, these are the two who have ended up in the race for the White House in 2016.
"Hillary would be the final nail in the coffin of a once-exceptional republic."
What does this mean? Obviously, it's not meant literally. What are we, a few hundred folks out of many billions but still not too much less than a fifth of the globe's gdp, and, by far, the most powerful military? You must realize that it's impossible to makeup an economic model which makes America's awesomeness disappear w/ four years of HRC.
Anywho, if you really want to stick w/ this line, could you list HRC's policies that will, according to your "analysis," irreversibly destroy America's current massive global advantage in four years?
should have said "a few hundred million"
I suppose there are two things that might stick from tonight.
From Clinton, she said, for some dumb reason, "No one died in Libya." Maybe she doesn't realize that Benghazi is in Libya.
From Trump, saying nice things about Putin.
Regardless, I think most people won't care or didn't pay attention. I'm sure the media will try and tell us tomorrow what the big gaffe of Trump was.
Almost immediately after Hillary shut up, Chris Matthews got on Twitter to tell everyone that her performance was flawless.
(she must be consulting with her supervisor)
maybe a pro will take over ol' '55's account.
could be interesting!
We'll always have Peanut.
Simple.
1% economic growth for four years, or zero per capita.
A generation unable to get a start in life for another four years, because it is youth (up to age 25) that got hit hardest in workforce participation and employment. Thats been going on for nearly a decade now.
Thats a generation that will probably be 20-30% unemployable, for life.
Thats a long term hit you arent really paying for yet.
Another four or eight years of this and you really will be Argentina, if you arent already, because that dynamic American spirit will be dead. You will coast a little longer on accumulated cultural assets as the dynamic generations age out. But after them its the deluge of grey goo.
It's high time. She wants it.
There's yer catch phrase.
"Yes, I saw a clip of some of that and it seemed really unprofessional. I guess I'm glad I didn't put myself in the position of having to listen to that. Later was cutting in and interrupting just to badger Trump, not letting him answer. Why didn't Lauer at least try to look neutral? "
So let me get this straight: Ann forgot that this discussion was on tv tonight. And she can't find the entire show on You tube. But after watching "a clip of some of that" (sic), she feels qualified to weigh in on her suspected bias of the moderator. Very lawyer like Ann.
"My thanks to Jon Podhoretz in the NY Post for boiling down the election to its base problem"
You lost me after NY Post.
PBandJ_LeDouanier - Donnie and Sarah have one thing in common - Stephen Bannon. He is responsible for her movie, "The Undefeated."
Up until Palin endorsed Trump, I was an avid Palin fan and believed she would have been a good President, but I was immediately turned off by Trump and to this day I cannot understand why anyone would think good of him. So I don't think that Palinistas necessarily favor Trump.
Eric,
Did Matthews mention whether he got that predictive thrill up his leg?
"But with Hillary? All we get is a thieving scum bag who has no problem lying to our face about anything big or small. No thanks. I'll vote for that orange freak in a heart beat."
The yearning maw of white male anxiety.
more of an ejaculation.
"1% economic growth for four years, or zero per capita."
If I were young, I'd be freaking out.
mutaman to the rescue!
or is it mutamam?
Blogger Mutaman said...
"But with Hillary? All we get is a thieving scum bag who has no problem lying to our face about anything big or small. No thanks. I'll vote for that orange freak in a heart beat."
The yearning maw of white male anxiety.
--
Potent distillation..I call "raaaacist!" and "Seeexxxiist!"
Gadfly,
Why Trump?
Why not? You have nothing to lose.
You are like Okinawa Japs trapped in a bunker, out of ammo and about to be fried with flamethrowers.
Its time for a Banzai charge.
Original Mike.
If you were young, you'd more likely be taught anything but realistic economic principles.
But you'd have highly developed thumb dexterity.
Blogger Original Mike said...
"1% economic growth for four years, or zero per capita."
If I were young, I'd be freaking out.
If you were young, you'd be too stupid or too complacent to care.
buwaya,
Gadfly has long ago established he wants no fingerprints on this election.
So consider his comments in that context..
Did anyone else notice the "parsing" in her email explanation? Now she "never received any emails with a Top Secret/Classified/Confidential HEADER".
But what if one of her top aides wanted to get some classified document to her without Hillary! having to go to one of those secure communications rooms she so detested? Pretty easy to just copy/paste the contents of said document and send it to whichever Blackberry she was using at the time. No pesky 'headers' to worry about now!
Oh, look, here's an article about just such a practice. While this exchange only details one instance, I really doubt it only occurred once, considering how Hillary! was all about "convenience".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html
Parsing and the Clintons just go hand in hand don't they?
You can't have one without the other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8t5cOjlEPU
I have been posting as "unknown" for a month because I had been logging in with google +. I changed it to my old screen name to avoid confusion with the other trolls. I enjoy the regular posters here even though I think Ann is pulling our leg half the time. ;-)
For all us old folks at home, retired or retiring, what you have to lose is much less than that large (very large) minority of kids, as they are going to lose their entire lives, but theres something in this for all.
Consider your pensions, and in that I include Social Security. These things, public and private and by implication through tax revenues, SS as well, assume something like 8% return on assets (this is a typical number Ive noticed). And any retirement capital and savings you have also.
This simply isnt happening. Those poor people who were depending on CD yields have seen this situation for years. Some people have gotten along on the liquidity driven stock market, but, well, it has turned on us several times, and without actual economic growth we arent going to be getting our 8% unless we are pretty lucky private investors.
Private and public pensions systems aren't, in spite of all kinds of games being played. These games will just get more desperate.
Thank you for the clarification GK1..even if Ann thought it a distraction to ask for it. "Think of the readers!" Yeah..we were.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"Hillary would be the final nail in the coffin of a once-exceptional republic."
"What does this mean? Obviously, it's not meant literally."
1. The rule of law will die. It obviously doesn't apply to Hillary so only a rube would follow it.
2. The individual right to bear arms will be struck down by 5 creative judges. Half the country that individually owns arms will ignore the feds. See 1.
3. The IRS will continue to persecute Democrat enemies.
4. The EPA will continue to persecute democrat enemies while they aren't dumping mine tailings in our drinking water.
5. The FBI/DOJ will continue to not investigate or prosecute democrat politicians that are in clear violation of the law.
6. We will have 1% growth forever despite borrowing and printing more than 10% of our GDP just like during the entire Obama presidency. We will be told constantly how awesome the economy is.
7. Government employment will skyrocket and we will pass more than 2 government employees for every 1 manufacturing employee.
8. Healthcare in this country will completely implode. Obamacare is already in a death spiral and the democrats will show everyone the hell of single payer that veterans live through now with the VA.
"Its time for a Banzai charge."
Or at the very least a Benghazi charge.
According to Scott Adams, "Godzilla" the master persuader is setting Hillary up to be more "persuasive" than Trump and so we can nevermind what she actually says. In that context one can view her performance tonight favorably. If one listened to what she said...
We have run out of Pinocchios. She IS Pinocchio! Apparently she has been advised that she has taken all the hit she will take for lieing so fuggedaboudit! She seems to have been advised to just be "Presidential" and speak with confidence so that those who have taken the bait that Trump is a wild man will see her all "Presidenty" and him all "crazyguy". The media will pretend that what she says about the emails makes a great deal of sense and requires no further comment.and she will sail through this.
The other possibility is that the Democrats have such a huuuge October Surprise on Trump that she can limp into office, be pardoned and hang on to the office long enough to "Louisiana Purchase" enough votes to withstand impeachment.
Final advice to those planning to vote for Hillary: Do not read and understand the transcript of her remarks tonight. Read the NYT report and assume that is all that need be said about her performance.
Lot of Sarah Palin haters here. A successful governor of a large state, rather then a SECSTATE of an administration with a train wreck of a foreign policy. A woman who rose on her own rather then owing everything to riding her husbands coattails, while other women rode other things of his. Far more qualified to be president then the current Democrat presidential candidate. And healthier.
I didn't watch tonight's spectacle. Since Lauer is being lambasted by liberals for being unfair to Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, corrupt alcoholic enabler of her sexual predator husband, I assume Trump came out on top.
Blogger Unknown said...
"I think we will look back on this time in a few years and it will still be inexplicable as to what Althouse and Tradguy saw in Trump."
What they see in Trump is that he is not Hillary, grifter, inept destroyer of the middle east and sequestrator of emails. If she is elected it will become more obvious in months, not years.
Trump is the Not Hillary candidate.
Palin had more going for her on the way to veep candidate than she has since.
She's been a shrill opportunist for some time now.
hombre,
Give me a break. Tradguy is full on Trump worshipper. Scroll back a bit in time..clearly way past "not Hil". He's waving a lighter..
(A tartan lighter)
Achilles said...
"2. The individual right to bear arms will be struck down by 5 creative judges. Half the country that individually owns arms will ignore the feds."
You forgot to add "Hilarity ensues!"
"A successful governor of a large state"
I've heard it's popular to give out participation trophies to kids who play on losing sports teams. So, I guess the trophy means that they succeeded in finishing, even though they lost.
Even so, I still think the kids aren't allowed to be quitters to successfully earn a participation trophy. Now, w/ the Palin precedent we can start handing out trophies to kids who dip their toes into a game before packing it in because it's too tough, even though the clock is still running.
Got it.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"A successful governor of a large state"
"I've heard it's popular to give out participation trophies to kids who play on losing sports teams. So, I guess the trophy means that they succeeded in finishing, even though they lost.
Even so, I still think the kids aren't allowed to be quitters to successfully earn a participation trophy. Now, w/ the Palin precedent we can start handing out trophies to kids who dip their toes into a game before packing it in because it's too tough, even though the clock is still running.
Got it."
You are clearly ignorant of what she accomplished in Alaska. She worked with mostly democrats in the state legislature to negotiate a deal with the Oil companies for the oil leases in Alaska. The deal was extremely favorable to the actual citizens of Alaska and was fought by the oil cronies on the republican side of the isle. For a significant period of time there were almost no taxes in Alaska.
Of course the uniparty then filed numerous lawsuits against her and drove her out of the governorship. Shortly after driving her out the cronies rewrote the deal. Just like the uniparty and the cronies wanted.
You post the dumbest shit out of the basest ignorance. I gave you 8 examples of how the republic will die if Clinton is elected and you obviously have nothing for that. You cannot acknowledge the most basic truths about Hillary Clinton. You are a joke.
Btw, according to the Palin fans, how does Lauer's pal Savanah stack up when compared to the smarts of Sarah? I don't know if the bar exam is tough in AZ, but having the highest score for a particular year can't be a bad thing. Presumably Savanah could even handle a gotcha question, like asking her what she reads. Just Sayin'.
Ach,
Don't forget that in addition to being a socialist giving dough to folks w/o them working for it, she was also for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/23/bridge-too-far-bridge-nowhere/
Anywho, as I noted upthread: all current Trump apologists who also used to be (or still are) Palin apologists should be required to self designate all their comments (and posts for Althouse) w/ a disclaimer so that folks who are unfamiliar with their record of poor judgement will get a warning.
href=" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/veteran-confronts-clinton-on-handling-of-classified-information/article/2601224?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From%20-%2009/07/16&utm_medium=email">Veteran confronts Hillary with truth
I had a TS/SCI clearance. I would be in jail if I did what Hillary did. The only reason Hillary is not in jail is because she is powerful, wealthy, and a democrat.
Anyone who supports her is a bad person. Period.
She was driven from office by Democratic lawfare. As was Senator Stevens. Rick Perry. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Tom DeLay. Didn't succeed with Scott Walker and Chris Christie. But anyone frequenting Althouse knows of the John Doe investigations aimed at Republicans.
Gov. Palin amassed over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against frivolous ethics complaints, and the law at the time didn't allow for state resources to defend her. The law, by the way, has been changed. Because Democrats demonstrated they could, and would, drive someone from office by abusing the legal system when they couldn't win at the ballot box. $500,000 in legal fees with a $125,000 annual salary as governor. Anyone who knows the whole story knows she was driven from office. You'd run too.
As far as emails go, remember all hers being released? And the media asking the public to help them comb through them to find evidence of wrongdoing? The news from the MSM is that FBI Director Comey completely cleared the current Democrat presidential candidate of any wrongdoing at all, and couldn't find anything wrong at all in her handling of classified documents. I'm waiting for the media to ask the public to help them examine all those emails for evidence of wrongdoing so they can report on it. Oh, BTW- they couldn't find any evidence in Palin's emails. Nor was there any effort to hide them, there was no personal server, and government business wasn't conducted on personal email accounts.
PBJ is shilling for thee grifter, criminal and treasonous Hillary Clinton and Trump supporters are the morons? I can tolerate four years of Trump, he isn't a two term guy. I truly wish a Trump Administration would clean out the DoJ of the criminal Democrats and start enforcing the law with the Clinton's being prosecuted for their crimes.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"Ach,
Don't forget that in addition to being a socialist giving dough to folks w/o them working for it, she was also for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it."
I actually read the article you linked. Politifact went to extraordinary lengths to find something they ended up saying was nothing. It was a hatchet job to be sucked up by idiots like you. It was a matter of almost no importance and they still had to set up a straw man argument.
This is opposed to Hillary getting away with crimes that hundreds of people in the military have been sent to jail for because she is a wealthy democrat and we were just peons defending your right to be an idiot.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/08/hillary-did-it-too-defense-fails-sailor-gets-jail-for-submarine-photos/
The sailor went to jail for 6 photos of a submarine. He didn't even distribute or have intent to distribute. Hillary distributed 1000's of emails to people without clearances that were clearly marked [c].
Anyone supporting Hillary is a joke.
According to the NY police department, Hillary was wearing a nearly invisible "inductive earpiece" during the forum, which would have let her get help from her team backstage. I'd say she was trying out the Candy Crowley model she'd secretly be using during the presidential debates against Donald Trump, but she got caught. I wonder if Trump will demand to have her ears inspected before they go on stage at the debates, just to make sure she's not cheating again (or, as usual).
After the interrogations segment, the Destroy Trump or Bust MSNBC talking head kamikaze kept right on ridiculing the General they had on that spoke up for Trump.
The great intellects assumed that a President must plan and direct the military invasions in detail and announce them in advance.
The year 1943 saw WWII stalled in Europe while FDR struggled with Churchill over the needed invasion of Northern France versus the Brits demand for a slow crawling up the mountainous Italian boot and invasion of southern France. Churchill was 100% into preserving the Empire's post war control of control in the Balkans and Crimea to block the Russians.
In the end FDR won that commander-in-chief duel by doing a some useless Italian slaughtering (Anzio and MonteCasino) to placate Churchill's gang but still put our real effort into Normandy.
MSNBC would have spent the year 1943 ridiculing FDR and demanding that he name the eact time and location for D-Day and fournish a list of the forces to be landed all to make Churchill's British Empire play look slightly rational like they are doing now for Obama's Iranian Empire first play.
BP said:
"These things, public and private and by implication through tax revenues, SS as well, assume something like 8% return on assets (this is a typical number Ive noticed). And any retirement capital and savings you have also."
A recent wsj article has John Bogle projecting nominal annual returns on equities to be 2% for the next decade.
Bogle is one smart guy. At least when it comes to investing.
driven from office? hahahahahahah....
she quit when it got tough...period.
I actually read the article you linked.
PB&J has shown that he doesn't give a rats ass about facts. I wouldn't bother with him except he is one of those confident morons who posts his lies over and over.(he may not even know, and certainly doesn't care if they are lies)
she quit when it got tough...period.
She should have taken care to shake people down and get rich so she could have afforded paying lawyers to defend her from charges like wearing an Arctic Cat jacket to an event from her personal money. Didn't she know that only rich people are allowed to be in government? Hillary gets that.
If somebody promises you 8%, assume he is a moron, if they start giving you checks as if you are earning 8%, assume a Ponzi scheme.
you should ask her what she reads now...oh wait
$500,000 in legal fees with a $125,000 annual salary as governor.
Had Hillary been governor, she would have been sure to have shaken everybody down involved in that pipeline that Palin got built, instead of just getting it done without getting rich off of it, which is how Palin did it.
You guys think you are defending Palin, but you are just showing what an idiot she was to think she could be a governor without being rich.
you should ask her what she reads now...oh wait
What do you read? Is there some specific newspaper you read to get your ideas from, to have your news filtered for you, or do you read a ton of different news sources. How many major newspapers are there in Alaska? Would it be that hard to read "all of them"?
Remember when Palin was talking about Putin and she was ridiculed by people like you? I do, now Putin is the devil incarnate!
Toby Tucker:
Yes, I too noticed that Clinton is now using the term "headers" when she claims she is not guilty of the crime of mishandling classified info. She is a Clinton so she is a shameless, serial liar.
I saw snippets on the morning news. They all looked bad, including Lauer. No gotcha moment for Trump, but not for lack of trying on Lauer's part. Trump looked kind of puffy. Hillary looked healthy, although not especially durable. I would grade the semiotics a toss up.
Did Hillary wear an ear piece?
http://truepundit.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-was-wearing-invisible-earpiece-to-receive-stealth-coaching-during-live-nbc-tv-town-hall/
I liked Gorbachev. He seemed a decent person. And Yeltsin had a few good moments. The truth of the matter, however, is that both men are thoroughly reviled in Russia and Putin is popular. There's some justification for this. Mother Russia really hit the skids under Gobachev and Yeltsin, and life isn't quite so dire under Putin. .........Gorbachev is beloved by liberals. He was a failure, but he failed in ways that liberals approve of. I think we can look to Hillary to continue Obama's pattern of morally inspiring failures.
Perhaps he thought he was not merely looking neutral, but being neutral?
He'd probably tell you he was bending over backwards to be fair to Trump.
Her lies over the email server were absolutely brazen:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/veteran-confronts-clinton-on-handling-of-classified-information/article/2601224
"I know, classified material is designated. ... And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked, there were no headers, there was no statement top secret, secret, or confidential."
So she didn't recognize that [c]=confidential on her numerous emails. Nor did anyone mention that she asked an aid to "strip the headers" and send the confidential email in plaintext.
My wife had the TV on, and I kept hearing stuff about Clinton, and Trump on board the USS Intrepid. I checked your blog, and Instapundit, but couldn't find any mention.
Maybe I need to get out more.
Maybe you should broaden your horizons.
It was like some sort of black hole on the internet. 20 minutes into it, the only place I could find that had a mention of the event on their website was AOSHQ.
After the event, I took to Twitter and MSM websites, and found another Black Hole. No mention of Hillary whatsoever.
Very strange.
Many surmise the Presidential debates are going to be epic; on par with a pay-per-view event.
I get the feeling the Democrat National News Service intends to curb your enthusiasm.
Huma must have remembered to remind her Hillary to bring the earpiece last night.
My wife had the TV on,..
I wasn't going to listen to one syllable out of Hillary, but the wife was insistent she was going to watch. I thought good--I can get an unbiased review. I told her I don't think she'll last 5 minutes.
I heard the tv shut off 30 seconds later.
"Many surmise the Presidential debates are going to be epic; on par with a pay-per-view event.
I get the feeling the Democrat National News Service intends to curb your enthusiasm."
I'll be surprised if debates take place at all. I can easily see Hillary making a big show of outrage over some Trump antic and refusing to share a stage.
Ras[putin] equals Putin?
Didn't P, B, and J confess to being Chuck a couple of weeks ago? Does Althouse encourage jokers to use sockpuppets here? One or the other.
Darrell,
It would be easy to think PBandJ and Chuck are the same person. Taken together, they are of one mind and have less than one brain.
I found the quintessential liberal (non) account of Hillary's performance: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/07/hillary-clinton-rises-matt-lauer-nbcs-hit-job-shines-commander-in-chief-forum.html
Yes, it was probably written before the program and updated by references to what actually occurred, but if one is a typical liberal bubble reader there is no hint of what actually happened.
Here are the references to Hillary's handling of emails:
"Matt Lauer’s second question was about Clinton’s emails and why that isn’t a disqualifying factor. Clinton said that she has a lot of experience in dealing with classified material, and none of the emails sent or received by her had a top secret or classified header...The first question was from a vet who asked how anyone who handled classified info could have confidence in her. Clinton answered that classified material is designated and marked…...and what we have here is the use of unclassified system used by hundreds of people in the government to communicate information that was not classified. She added that she used a separate system for classified information.
Amazing.
Oh, I forgot the summary:
"Clinton shined in this forum. She looked, sounded, and acted like a president. Despite NBC’s best attempts to make a veterans’ forum about anything other than veterans issues, Hillary Clinton showed America why she is the most qualified candidate for the White House in history."
Truly amazing reporting.
"From Clinton, she said, for some dumb reason, "No one died in Libya." Maybe she doesn't realize that Benghazi is in Libya."
Why am I suddenly thinking about President Ford, and Poland?
"From Clinton, she said, for some dumb reason, "No one died in Libya." Maybe she doesn't realize that Benghazi is in Libya."
She meant no one in the military.
And no one before Quaddafi's overthrow.
I heard about the event on the radio, but didn't realize it was on TV. Ithought it wasn't broadcast.
tim in vermont said...9/8/16, 6:08 AM
If somebody promises you 8%, assume he is a moron, if they start giving you checks as if you are earning 8%, assume a Ponzi scheme.
Not necessarily. Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway delivered twice as good returns as Bernard Madoff.
Althouse, while I haven't seen a complete video online, there is a complete transcript on the Washington Post site.
I guess I should not be surprised to wander over here at the end of a long day and see that the usual trump apologists are claiming that Lauer went easier on Hillary than on Donald. Geez. he never called Donald on any of the nonsense Trump was spewing, from "I was against the war in Iraq all along" to "take the oil" to "they should start a military court system to handle that," with the hilarious exception of when they got into it about Donald's "secret plan" to defeat ISIS by having the (new!) generals come up with a plan. I know that the emails needed to be addressed in the Hillary half of the forum, but for HALF of her allotted time? In a forum about the military and vets, etc., when we could have heard more about her views on the VA, use of force, terrorism, etc etc etc. Would have liked to hear what she had to say about the idea of illegal immigrants serving in the military, a question Lauer asked only Trump, for example. Still not thrilled with either candidate, but I honestly felt that Hillary came across as better prepared and armed with specific ideas and plans, while Donald seemed to be repeating a lot of the rambling gobbledygook that got him this far.
How I would have loved to have seen this forum if the candidates were Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, or Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren, or even Eric Cantor and John Kerry. Both sides should have been able to come up with much better candidates (okay, the dems have a shallow bench, hence the inclusion of Kerry) and the Republicans should have been able to wipe the floor with the Dems.
Would Hillary promote anyone who gave her the feeble excuses for breaking security which she is using? Why, yes she would - because her staff did the same and she proposes to take them up into the White House. But, no she wouldn't if you have no connection to the Clinton Foundation. And can such a one command? Why yes, just realize that her chief command is "shut up." When some at State asked about the e-mails they were told "never speak again about the Secretary's e-mail." When questions were asked about her health, her staff began ordering everyone not to ask that question either. Matt Lauer is under fire for asking about the e-mails as if he were a reporter or something.
This how it is:
"Commander STFU is here, troops - on count of three, give the Hillary salute: eyes shut, ears plugged, right hand placed over mouth, open left hand extended with cash on palm."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा