December 12, 2017

Trump tweet-trashes Kirsten Gillibrand.


It took me a while to understand "Crooked-USED!" That hyphen is confusing. But I think "USED!" is a free-standing exclamation like his famous "Sad!" It's the way he abruptly ends tweets and not — as the hyphen suggests — part of a new nickname for Hillary. He's just calling Hillary "Crooked," not "Crooked-USED!"

And Hillary is not the one who, according to Trump, is used. Gillibrand is used. She's "a total flunky."

There are some mixed values in this tweet. Is loyalty good or bad? Gillibrand doesn't get credit for being loyal to Schumer. She gets called "a total flunky" for that. But she gets knocked for being disloyal to Trump and disloyal to Bill and Hillary.

Trump cannot be totally serious. He can't think that Gillibrand, as a Democratic Senator, would support him politically just because he gave her money when he was a private citizen and she was fundraising. It sounds almost as though he's asserting that campaign contributions are bribes. Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly.

And what's the disloyalty to Bill and Hillary he purports to be concerned about? From last month, "Gillibrand remark on Clinton sends shockwaves through Democratic Party/The anti-sexual harassment crusader and potential 2020 candidate prompted an uncomfortable debate among Democrats about a beloved party figure" (Politico):
Asked whether [Bill] Clinton should have stepped down [because of the Lewinsky scandal], the senator paused and responded, “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response.”

However, she then pointed to the difference between the late 1990s and now, highlighting the dramatically changed social and political environments.

“Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances, there should be a very different reaction. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him,” she said.
Where's the flunkyism there? Seems to me she led the way... if "led the way" makes sense when we're talking about doing something 20 years too late. In the heat of the struggle over what to do about Al Franken and confronted with a question about Bill Clinton, she quickly aligned her positions. I don't see what role Schumer played, and I think the problem of loyalty to Bill and Hillary is that there's been too much loyalty to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it's made a mess of the Democratic Party (not that I think Kirsten Gillibrand has what it takes to drag the party out of that mess).

So I guess I still don't get the "USED!" I think Gillibrand is trying to seem like an independent leader. I suppose Trump sees that and wants to screw up her game. She's a potential opponent for him in 2020, and he's trying to put a sticky label on her. He's trying "flunky," "lightweight," and "USED!" All of those are the opposite of what she's trying to establish for herself.

ADDED: Trump is toying with sexual innuendo. The woman is "USED!" and she "begg[ed]" and "would do anything."

232 comments:

1 – 200 of 232   Newer›   Newest»
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The democrats decided it was good for the party to throw Franken over-board. Now, they want Trump to jump overboard.
The thing is, the democrat party IS THE PARTY OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON. The democrats selected the wife of a rapist as their presidential candidate. Sorry democrats, you still lose. You chose wrong.

Martha said...

Gillibrand championed Emma Sulkowicz —Columbia University’s “Mattress Girl”—she is both used and a user.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

He's pointing out that once upon a time she wanted Trumps icky dirty money. That's funny because it will help turn democrats against her. The hive-mind cannot abide.

Big Mike said...

Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly.

Why not?

Bill Peschel said...

It's amusing to wonder if he's really serious about these tweets, or if he understands that he's using them as chaff while he implements his policies. Either theory works.

Ray said...

I view it as a test tweet.

If it goes viral, he will escalate and repeat.

Sebastian said...

"wants to screw up her game" ICWYDT, but yeah.

But for all the semi-fisking here, the game is to appeal to female weakness and resentment, in order to turn the Reckoning back into the Narrative, for the sake of gaining prog power. Trump's tweet attack may intrigue AA, and amuse some of us deplorables, but it will also be fodder for the Gillibrands: look how mean that man is to a woman! Many women will fall for it.

This is not an Althousian world.

Bay Area Guy said...

Can you imagine a hypothetical President Romney tweeting like this?

Of course not.

But, that's partly why Romney is not president. Paraphrasing Lincoln on Grant - "I can't spare this man - he fights"

Inga said...

Your President is a pig who just sexualy harassed a female Senator. Of course he was serious.

David Begley said...

“and would do anything for them)”

Gillibrand is a hypocrite and implied whore.

The weird thing is she thinks this will help her become President. She should resign for being an idiot.

Michael K said...

"Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly."

Everybody knows that is what goes on.

In Bossie and Lewandowski's book, Bossie told Trump that, if he was going to run as a Republican, he needed to stop donating to Democrats and give some money to Republicans. Trump told him that his political contributions were evenly divided. Bossie did a FEC review and pointed out they were all to Democrats. Trump hadn't realized it. It was because of New York and there are almost no Republicans in New York. Peter King is about the only one anyone has heard of.

rcocean said...

She's a Schumer's "flunky: because she votes with him 99.99 percent of the time. There's every reason to believe she'd jump off a cliff if Chucky told her to.

And she's definitely "light-weight".

Trump loves to rub in the fact that all these Dems and RINO's are phonies. Trump was wonderful when they were begging for his $$$ - now he's Hitler.

David Begley said...

Inga

Trump didn’t sexually harass her. He just exposed her as a hypocrite and idiot. Probably worse for her. Now I know what a fool she is.

rcocean said...

You have to admire the Democrats. When they're bought - they stay bought.

With the Republicans you have "Mavericks".

Michael K said...

Inga is up early for election day,.

Inga said...

Trump just messed with the wrong Senator.

Kirsten Gillibrand
Kirsten Gillibrand
@SenGillibrand
You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office.
7:53 AM · Dec 12, 2017

tcrosse said...

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

David Begley said...

In addition to Mimi Alford, JFK banged a woman named Inga Binga. I wonder if Inga Binga felt USED?

David Begley said...

Shame brought to the Oval Office? JFK and WJC own the trademark for Shame in the Oval Office.

MayBee said...

It's just hilarious that Gillibrand called for him to step down. As if that's going to happen.
And as if Gillibrand is a good judge of character. As Martha pointed out, she championed Emma Sulcowicz, who seems to have been allowed to just disappear rather than being called to account.

tcrosse said...

Trump-hate. It's all they've got.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

When the media mention Bill's sexual crimes, they only discuss Lewinsky. They never bring up the decades of women who accused Bill of abuse or worse - rape. Since Bill's wife and Bill's paid surrogates trashed all those women as "gold digging trailer trash" - the media accept that as the truth. No intellectual curiosity enters the media's narrative. nope - just Lewinsky - the inappropriate but consensual Oval Office affair.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oh goody - it's the pussy hat hate brigade. They are PISSED Trump stole the election from the wife of a rapist.

james james said...

"You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines ..."

I think the question is why they stayed on the sidelines until now.

She waited until the tide turned against the Clintons, then attacked them to give herself room to attack Trump.

Hypocrisy to avoid being called a hypocrite.

If something is happening here but you don't know what it is, it might be because you were used.

- james james

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

I think Trump got his message through. And I'm still not tired of all the winning.

Darrell said...

Trump is the one feeling used. Used as a piggy bank. No friendship or loyalty accrued. Like dipshit kids receiving Gramma's checks.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

“Trump didn’t sexually harass her. He just exposed her as a hypocrite and idiot. Probably worse for her. Now I know what a fool she is.”

If a President of a company said that one of his female officers would do anything to get ahead in the company and that she was actually recently in his office begging for it, that would be sexual harassment. Your pig of a President just sexually harrassed a sitting Senator. Keep making excuses for his man, you people will have to live down the fact you voted for him for generations to come.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Millions of women were raped by Trump the night Trump beat the wife of a rapist.

*

Bay Area Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

Now you can't call a specific woman a lightweight, greedy, backstabbing idiot without Inga charging you with sexual harassment. Trump reopened the Moon/Mars space program, so there may be a place for you yet in the future.

Darrell said...

Gillibrand- "You cannot silence me......."

Apparently not.

brylun said...

Kirsten Gillibrand, former Philip Morris defense attorney.

Hagar said...

Strumpet.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Trump rang the bell and Gillibrand started barking wildly. Really, he has to be laughing his ass off. When something as simple as a tweet can make your enemies fall into a frenzy of self-cutting, you own them. Calculated and hilarious.

Mike said...

Your President is a pig who just sexualy harassed a female Senator. Of course he was serious.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. See? This overreaction is exactly why we love Trump's tweets. This is it!

Thank you for playing along Inga!

Big Mike said...

Inga to the contrary, I think Trump has set up some sort of trap for Gillibrand, and instead of being suitably wary she’s charging right in. She won five years ago with 73% of the vote, but if he can get her into a serious gaffe she may be forced to work hard next year to defend her seat and suck up Democrat money needed to help Machin hold his seat in West Virginia and Donnelly hold his seat in Indiana.

Mike said...

My prediction is that "Mattress-Girl Gillibrand" will enjoy a series of humorous nicknames until The Donald finds one that sticks.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Good Lord! She starts it by publicly claiming he should step down over these re-run allegations. Then Trump smacks her. Then she cries. “He can’t silence me”.

He’s not trying to silence you. The more you run your mouth the more he shows you for the fraud you are. Keep fighting if you like, you’ll lose!

Winning!

WisRich said...

AlbertAnonymous said...

He’s not trying to silence you. The more you run your mouth the more he shows you for the fraud you are. Keep fighting if you like, you’ll lose!

Winning!

12/12/17, 8:55 AM

Agreed. Donny two-scoops was hoping she'd take the bait and she did.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly.

I think everybody thinks that wealthy people give money to politicians so that they can have access and influence. Trump said just that during his campaign, he straight out said he knew how that game was played and it was one of his selling points that he was so rich they wouldn't be able to bribe him. So I don't see why he wouldn't say it in public now. I too caught the "do anything" reference. Those load popping noises you hear are liberal and neverTrumper heads exploding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1jf2hOkec4

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The party of Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Meryl Streep and Joy Behar and the wife of Put Some Ice on That who smeared all of Bill's accusers as "trailertrash deplorables" want their phony street cred back with women.

Inga said...

Maybe Gillibrand was hoping he’d take the bait after calling for his resignation yesterday. And take the bait he did, showed himself to be the pig and sexual harasser that he is. Didn’t Hillary say something about “provoking him with a tweet”?

Darrell said...

Give it up, Inga. You'd have to be pretty stupid to buy your sexual harassment argument against Trump. You are, sure. But even George Soros will say it's pathetic and stop handing out the checks.

Pookie Number 2 said...

I can't tell whether it's intentional, but Trump's bluster very successfully reveals how very hollow and contemptible our ruling class is.

Only the incredibly weak-minded are impressed by Gillibrand's situation-specific willingness to "speak out". Normal people recognize it as insincere opportunism.

Inga said...

"A man you can bait with a tweet" can't be trusted "with nuclear weapons"

Hillary Clinton

tim in vermont said...

She did a 180 on a lot of stuff that was popular in her rural Congressional district when her looks got her into the Senate, like 2A, and if memory serves, abortion, and Obamacare.

Kyzernick said...

Pretty sure that Trump baited HER.

Now he'll probably bring up her hypocritical past of supporting the Clintons and taking money from Hollywood bigwigs, all of whom turned out to be perverts in one form or another.

Not that we really care what Not-President Clinton has to say. But, she got baited too.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
Maybe Gillibrand was hoping he’d take the bait after calling for his resignation yesterday. And take the bait he did, showed himself to be the pig and sexual harasser that he is. Didn’t Hillary say something about “provoking him with a tweet”?"

A quick google search turns up the lefty websites that are calling Trumps tweet "sexual harassment." You know our resident dullard couldn't try to make that preposterous claim all by her itty-bitty brained self. I mean I'm amazed she can go off and copy and actually find her way back here to paste.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

What the f***!?

Hillary Clinton, November 8, 2016 - 11:00 PM Eastern

Pookie Number 2 said...

"A man you can bait with a tweet" can't be trusted "with nuclear weapons"

Hillary Clinton


It's probably not a great idea to invoke Hillary Clinton on the issue of trust.

dreams said...

Trump's tweet is just another example of the cunning and courageous Trump.

Economic growth is accelerating, stock prices are rising, and consumer confidence is soaring. The only distressed asset in the US market is conventional wisdom, which dismissed the former real-estate developer and reality TV star as a blundering amateur.

On the contrary, Trump evinces a shrewdness about American voters better than that of any politician of his generation. Even more importantly, he has the nerve to take risks in order to draw his opponents into battles that he thinks he can win. I can think of no politician with his combination of courage and cunning since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to whom I compared the then president-elect in a December 2016 essay for Standpoint."

http://www.atimes.com/article/trumps-courage-cunning-confound-opponents/

Unknown said...

Hey, Inga's back. Think she'll apologize for lying, yet again, yesterday? Of course not. Remember how she claimed that no one on earth had ever, ever said that Moore Accuser Nelson claimed that Moore had written all of that forged inscription? That it was only his signature?

And then someone, I think Micheal K, came back with several links showing the exact opposite and Inga vanished? Being caught in a lie tends to happen to her and CNN a lot lately, doesn't it?

You know what else won't happen? Inga repeatedly calling for Democrat Senator Menendez to step down because he is allegedly a child rapist who has lots of trips to Pedo Island (probably in the seat next to Bill Clinton) to rape young girls. Inga and the rest of the left really, really hate that story, because they can't complain too loudly because what's more important: a senate seat or raped young girls? And if they drive Menendez out.... Chris Christie will appoint a Republican.

Expect Menendez to be forced out after the new New Jersey Governor is sworn in. Only then will Inga care. Or so she'll claim.

--Vance

tim in vermont said...

Can you trust a woman with nuclear weapons if she started a war that resulted in a "s hit show", Obama's words, and blistered about it afterwards, on the advice of a political hack on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation, recalling the words of Caesar on a campaign that according to Plutarch, resulted in millions killed?

Michael K said...

Poor Inga. You are a topic over at Powerline today in the discussion of left wing trolls that fill comment threads with trash,

Gillibrand did not just "champion" Mattress girl. She brought her to the State of the Union speech,

She championed a fraud and abuser of men.

This is going to turn around and bite the fake feminists who think it is their key to power.

traditionalguy said...

Tina Rutnik is lawyer from an old conservative ( Blue Dog) Democrat family in Albany, New York. When she married a Brit named Gillibrand she reverted to her full name Kirsten to better market herself and ran for the Hudson Valley area U S House District, with the primary sponsorship of Bill Clinton. She fully USED the Clinton's donor connections, which then included a NYC developer named Trump. She got her Senate seat the same way.

Her now switching alliances, or going over to the other side in a political war, brings to mind a highly trusted General in George Washington's Army who had been put in command of the key defense of the Hudson River fort blocking the British Navy's taking of New York in the final days of 1780. The key Fort was located in Gillibrand's old District and now serves as our US Military Academy) But that guy needed donor money too, so he arranged to change sides/switch alliances and USE the British Empire's donor wealth.

The trouble for Rutnik/Gillibrand is that like Benedict Arnold, she will never be trusted by either side again.

tim in vermont said...

Blustered, fucking autocorrect has the vocabulary of a Democrat.

Limited blogger said...

Nothing will ever be the same. Good.

Thank you, President Trump.

Darrell said...

"A man you can bait with a tweet" can't be trusted "with nuclear weapons"

Was Hillary's head bobbing and eyes twirling like pinwheels when she said it?

John said...

You sound pretty naive, Ann.

Why else would anyone, give money to a politician?

Of course it is a bribe!

Maybe not "I'll give you some money and you give me a zoning variance" but close to it.


Candidate Trump said as much. He didn't like it and used it as a selling point "I will self finance, i don't need to be beholden"

Only significant donations I ever gave were to both sides because my son wanted to go to a service academy. The donations were to help get his application considered.

It was not a bribe-bribe but was a bribe nonetheless. To both sides to make sure and given personally.

In the event, my son changed his mind. The pricks wouldn't give my money back.

John Henry

FranFranciso said...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-women-congress/u-s-house-democratic-women-seek-probe-of-trump-misconduct-accusations-idUSKBN1E606Z

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) -More than 50 female Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives called on Monday for a congressional investigation into allegations by various women of sexual misconduct against President Donald Trump, who has denied the accusations.

“We cannot ignore the multitude of women who have come forward with accusations against Mr. Trump,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter, though a formal inquiry was unlikely to result because Republicans control the agenda in Congress.“

Levi Starks said...

I think you’re reading way too much into it.
Trump is simply telling her she’s on the naughty list.
Her Christmas stocking will be empty.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

FranFrancisco has to be Inga, right. FakeInga was going on about living in SF for years.

Darrell said...

When the sockpuppets come out, shit has gotten serious.

Drago said...

Darrell: "FranFrancisco has to be Inga, right. FakeInga was going on about living in SF for years"

Possibly.

The probability is high, though not absolute.

John said...

David,

Actually Inga Arvad, wife of a suspected national socialist agent.

The only reason jfk wasin South pacific was because he wouldn't keep his pecker in his pants.

The navy takes adultery setiously. It takes adultery withe the wife of a national socialist agent even more seriously.

Had Joe Kennedy not been a major fem funder jfk would have gone to jail instead of the pacific.

That's what donations buy.

John Henry

Drago said...

Going with the handle "FranFrancisco" is just about synonymous with "I'm totally not WisWisconsin...Seriously!"

Darrell said...

Fran forgot to say how much she admires Inga's courage, wit, and knowledge. Then we'd know for sure.

cubanbob said...

nga said...
Maybe Gillibrand was hoping he’d take the bait after calling for his resignation yesterday. And take the bait he did, showed himself to be the pig and sexual harasser that he is. Didn’t Hillary say something about “provoking him with a tweet”?

Now that's funny! Speaking of comedy, what would really be funny would be Andrew Dice Clay impersonating Trump doing a riff on the upstate blonde airhead.

Mac McConnell said...

"Before the Rolling Stone story imploded, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were citing the Virginia gang rape as evidence of the problem, but now that the story has been exposed as bogus, they're telling us that, regardless of that isolated incident, there's still a huge campus rape problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible."

Gillibrand took the hoaxer Mattress Girl as a guess to the State Of the Union Address.

Gillibrand speaking of the Duke rape hoaxer, she should be believed even after the lie was reviled. She said the same for Mattress Girl and UVA hoaxers after proven to be frauds.

I'm I the only one getting tired of these elite country club private school home coming queen liberals vaginiasplaining.

chickelit said...

Martha said...Gillibrand championed Emma Sulkowicz —Columbia University’s “Mattress Girl”—she is both used and a user.

Did Gillibrand ever apologize to the young man for that? That sort of act seems akin to defending Lena Dunham's college rape hoax. These sorts of endorsements are cumulative and will undermine the credibility of The Reckoning. I doubt Gillibrand really cares.

Robert Cook said...

"It sounds almost as though he's asserting that campaign contributions are bribes."

Aren't they? (At least, when they're substantial enough, and from wealthy donors.)

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Aren't they? (At least, when they're substantial enough, and from wealthy donors.)"

Operationally, yes, though its not absolute.

Drago said...

Darrell: "Fran forgot to say how much she admires Inga's courage, wit, and knowledge. Then we'd know for sure."

As well as how brave (not "Caitlin Jenner "brave"' but still...) and courageous and "principled" LLR Chuck is.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Your pig of a President just sexually harrassed a sitting Senator. Keep making excuses for his man, you people will have to live down the fact you voted for him for generations to come."

More winning by Trump, more whining by lefty cunts.

Love it.

Drago said...

"Before the Rolling Stone story imploded, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were citing the Virginia gang rape as evidence of the problem, but now that the story has been exposed as bogus, they're telling us that, regardless of that isolated incident, there's still a huge campus rape problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible."

For the left, "Fake but Accurate" is an evergreen tactic.

Drago said...

"Your pig of a President just sexually harrassed a sitting Senator. Keep making excuses for his man, you people will have to live down the fact you voted for him for generations to come."

I can't help but notice that its not yet been even 1 generation since Bill Clinton's Presidency and the dems have yet to "live down" the fact that they voted for him, twice, AFTER it became known there were credible allegations of rape and assault.

Of course, the good little lefties are "courageously" standing up to Clinton today....LOL

Drago said...

"More than 50 female Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives ..."

Who all knew about Conyers for decades and said and did NOTHING.

#LeftyPrincipledLeadership

Drago said...

Inga: "Didn’t Hillary say something about “provoking him with a tweet”?"

Was she drunk and medicated and reacting violently to her election loss when she said it?

Mac McConnell said...

John
You're correct, JFK fucked up his easy wartime party job on Ambassador's Row. Then he got a cushy job on a PT boat, while they did shuttle between islands with supplies and do some recon work, they were mostly conceived for a romanticized war bond drive. The only real ship a US PT boat ever sunk in WWII was one of our own.
If Joe Kennedy had worked in a flour mill in a Midwestern city JFK would have been court marshaled for negligence for being rammed by a Jap destroyer in the middle of the night. I imagine they were all drunk, seaman like to serve with JFK because his unlimited access to spirits.

tcrosse said...

Your pig of a President just sexually harrassed a sitting Senator

If that's sexual harassment, then Sarah Palin should be able to sue.

Qwinn said...

Vance: It was Matthew Sabian, not Michael K, who dug up the sources of Wilson stating outright that Moore wrote the date and location stamp that we now know he didn't.

And yes, Inga immediately fled.

No word if the handwriting expert she is relying on now was the one who originally stated that the date and location stamp were also clearly Moore's writing. You'd think that'd be relevant as to his credibility as an expert!

Michael K said...

Oh Oh. We've hurt Inga's feelings.

Now she is FranFrancisco,

Same cut and paste methods, though.

Drago said...

Now that the real Russia collusion and corruption at the DOJ/FBI is being exposed, the dems need to ratchet up the Outrage Machine to distract from the emerging actual facts.

The collusion between Hillary/Fusion GPS/Putin/FBI/DOJ is no longer deniable from what we already know.

And in the case of the dems, unlike the fake dem/LLR charges against Trump, we know names, timeframes, connections, etc. And it all stinks to high heaven which is why there have been very recent demotions and "movin' folks around" over at the FBI/DOJ.

Its "encryption keys" all the way down.....

Drago said...

Hi, I'm CalCalifornia and I'm totally not Drago or anything.

Hey, that Drago really is on to something here, isn't he? Not to mention devastatingly handsome in an all American way. Naturally.

narciso said...

Yes he was dating Inga Arvad a Swedish journalist who was also a Nazi spy, it appears John profumu had a similar problem two decades before her name wee gisela.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/12/wife-of-doj-deputy-was-fusion-gps-employee-cia-research-aid-and-applied-for-ham-radio-license-month-after-contracting-mi6-agent-christopher-steele/

Michael K said...

A pretty good argument about the Moore election.

Meanwhile, back in the fever swamps of the left, cynicism is riding high. Democrats are stampeding to denounce other Democrats who have been exposed as sexual predators. But the Democratic Party has, for a quarter-century, been the party of sexual predators. Until only moments ago, Democrats were feting Hillary Clinton, the nation’s enabler-in-chief of sexual predation.
Now, the Clintons’ day is over and the Democrats are frantically trying to clean up their act because feminist women are a significant part of their base. Getting rid of Sen. Al Franken is an easy call: Minnesota’s governor is a Democrat and will appoint another Democrat to fill his seat.


Yup.

Darrell said...

Your pig of a President just sexually harrassed a sitting Senator

If that's sexual harassment, then Sarah Palin should be able to sue.


Yeah, sue. For gang rape with a chainsaw by the Leftie media and its fans.

Mac McConnell said...

Since November AG Sessions has been reported to be pondering a Special Council to investigate the FBI's collusion with Fusion GPS and interfering in the American election of 2016.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Aren't they? (At least, when they're substantial enough, and from wealthy donors.)

There are points upon which Robert Cook and I agree. Most of the big money has been going to the Democrats because they are the ones that control the government.

Remember when Microsoft didn't have lobbyists in DC and bragged about it? Back in the 90s. Then DC pols started sniffing the money and suddenly MS was being investigated for monopolist practices and bingo, Gates hired some lobbyists and that problem just kind of faded away. Lobbyists are people who know who to give the money to and how to funnel it so that nobody goes to jail.

John said...

Narciso,

Interesting you mention Profumo. I just read Mark Syeyns obit of him. He was, if nothing else, an honorable politician.

When caught with a Hooker he resigned from public life and spent the next 30 years working in a ghetto soup kitchen.

No interviews, no public statements, no attempts a a comeback.

That very rare animal, an honorable pol.

John Henry

Madisonian said...

I don’t think women are going to sit down and shut up for this one.

Chuck said...

I have never understood Trump's self-serving claim that the reason that he was a donor to prominent national Democrats was because he was a businessman who needed political help, and so that is why he was a donor.

What political help did Trump need? What political help did he get? What would Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton, or Kirsten Gillibrand, or any other national/federal Democrat do for Trump. What national Republican would do anything for Trump? More particularly, what did Trump need help with?

My personal suspicion is that Trump wasn't in need of any business-related political favors that would have made his donations cost-effective. At least not "real estate development" business. My personal suspicion is that Trump made donations as part of his personal/celebrity aura. He made a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, so that Bill and Hillary would attend Trump's third wedding. And I suppose if your business is "personal celebrity" then maybe the donation is a wise one. And business-related, in that sense.

Mac McConnell said...

John
Wasn't the whole scandal started because one of the "party girls" had left a bathing suit on the hedge top of an estate?

Darrell said...

We have to stop this bullshit of firing people based on unsubstantiated allegations alone. This is a recipe for disaster--and weaponized lies without consequence.

Drago said...

Winkelheimer: "Remember when Microsoft didn't have lobbyists in DC and bragged about it? Back in the 90s. Then DC pols started sniffing the money and suddenly MS was being investigated for monopolist practices and bingo, Gates hired some lobbyists and that problem just kind of faded away. Lobbyists are people who know who to give the money to and how to funnel it so that nobody goes to jail."

Indeed. In fact, the Clintons were fully in bed with Netscape at that time and voila! Microsoft goes under the Federal gun.

What a coincidence!!

Drago said...

Chuck: "I have never understood Trump's self-serving claim that the reason that he was a donor to prominent national Democrats was because he was a businessman who needed political help, and so that is why he was a donor"

LLR Chuck will be very busy deflecting for his operational dem allies this week given all that is coming out.

This latest is a rather poor and ineffective example of that.

320Busdriver said...

The only thing more delicious than the msnbc coverage right now will be Huckabee's presser this aft....

Kevin said...

Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly.

Isn't that why he largely self-funded his campaign? So he wouldn't feel beholden to a bunch of people who would expect him to do him favors later?

Unknown said...

I apologize to Matthew Sabian. I couldn't remember, but I certainly want to give credit where credit is due.

Also, note how Inga fled this thread as soon as it was mentioned. Have we discovered the fabled "Troll-B-Gone", much desired by many?

--Vance

Qwinn said...

She didn't flee, she just changed screen names and kept on trolling.

Darrell said...

The Democrats are trying to move on Trump with the unsupported allegation before somebody cracks down on all this. It should be illegal to make any criminal charges if criminal charges are no longer possible (because the SOL ran out, for example.)

Michael K said...

My personal suspicion is that Trump wasn't in need of any business-related political favors that would have made his donations cost-effective.

chuck is clueless, as usual. You give political donations for "access," meaning that if your opponent does and you don't you're fucked.

I spent years on the state medical association's Legislative Commission and the AMA equivalent. The medical associations were always in defensive mode, WE never wanted anything but to be left alone.

Probably the most effective political opponent we had was the chiropractors. Each year they would assess members a big fee and then go to the state legislature and say, "We only want this little thing." Next year it was another "little thing."

Most donations, as someone noted about Microsoft, are defensive.

I can see Trump doing business in a city of Democrats with unions and local pols who all want a little baksheesh.

I find it hard to understand a lawyer who doesn't know that.

Darrell said...

Wasn't the whole scandal started because one of the "party girls" had left a bathing suit on the hedge top of an estate?

She didn't leave it, some joker threw it in the hedges and the photographer got a shot of Christine running around naked looking for it.

ArnieKovacks said...

Trump tweets will be the end of him, no Russia nonsense, no corruption, only his twitter fingers.

roesch/voltaire said...

It seems to me the person who is willing to do anything is the Tweeter in chief who has filled the swamp with billionaires and Goldman Sachs folks who have rolled back banking regulations and consumer protection for the middle class, but then I just see this as another case of projection from Trump.

Kevin said...

@SenGillibrand
You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office.


She doesn't get it. This kind of response is 20th century words in a 21st century medium. It does nothing for her, but allows him to hit her again.

She just bit the lure and now he can slowly reel her in.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

ArnieKovacks: "Trump tweets will be the end of him, no Russia nonsense, no corruption, only his twitter fingers"

Allow me to summarize:

1) Trump continues to tweet
2) ????
3) Democrat PROFITS!!!

Sebastian said...

"You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office." This is how it's gonna be played. An appeal to women's weakness and resentment as a tool to regain prog power.

Sure, we may enjoy the overreaction. We will ridicule the sentimentality. We may even note the contradiction between half a century of claims to equality and the continued playing on women's special needs and feelings. But there are many more Ingas than Althouses. They will eat it up. This not an Althousian world.

Inga said...

“Also, note how Inga fled this thread as soon as it was mentioned.”

Nope, I’m just holding my fire until later.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "It seems to me the person who is willing to do anything is the Tweeter in chief who has filled the swamp with billionaires and Goldman Sachs folks who have rolled back banking regulations and consumer protection for the middle class, but then I just see this as another case of projection from Trump.


LOL

R/V is very very very upset that a key lefty money laundering operation is being shut down.

Good.

tim in vermont said...

It seems to me the person who is willing to do anything is the Tweeter in chief who has filled the swamp with billionaires and Goldman Sachs folks

As opposed to the previous administration. I seem to recall that a pre-election memo from a Citibank executive came out due to WikiLeaks that named Obama's cabinet-to-be almost to a person.

But that's different!

Humperdink said...

I have to chuckle at our resident lefty complaining about trusting DJT with the nuk-e-ler codes (a little GWB lingo). Yet she would trust a candidate who passes out during the campaign and does a face plant into a waiting van.

narciso said...

Berlusconi was similar, he donated to Christian democrats and socialists, its the cost of doing business:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/28/mi5-files-reveal-mysterious-case-john-profumo-glamorous-nazi

This is the source off tube earlier assertion

tcrosse said...

Tweeter in chief who has filled the swamp with billionaires and Goldman Sachs folks

Are they the same Goldman Sachs folks who bought Hillary ?

Kevin said...

You cannot silence me

When one could be silenced, speaking was enough on its own of a rejoinder.

Now everyone can speak to a global audience. What does "you cannot silence me" mean when sent to the world via phone via Twitter?

It means you are fighting the last war, not the one you're in.

It means you don't understand it's your words that matter now, not your ubiquitous ability to speak them.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

LOL - like all the Goldman Sachs folks (D) who use the state of New Jersey as their personal governorship?

Drago said...

Inga: "Nope, I’m just holding my fire until later."

That would explain why you are burned so often.

The ever evolving lefty narratives/memes leave you in the dust and you have to struggle to keep up.

Inga reminds me of the character in "The Paper Chase" who has a photographic memory and thinks that is sufficient (Inga "mimics" this by relentless cutting and pasting of articles she doesn't bother to comprehend).

Prof Kingsfield takes a moment to explain to this character that a photographic memory is useless without the ability to synthesize and analyze the given information and then develop and apply strategies etc.

That character ends up attempting suicide.

tim in vermont said...

I know of a story of a guy who had made a largish donation to a Democratic Senator he didn't really support, and when the Obama Administration started deciding whose car dealerships were going to get shut down in their highly secretive, but "utterly non-political" operation after taking over GM, he managed to get his dealership removed from the list.

Of course I didn't hear the above story first-hand, possibly not even second hand, and it might be complete bullshit, but Gretchen Carlson, of Fox News fame? Her family's dealership got shut down in this "non-political" but highly secretive project.

There are very good reasons for people who depend, or may depend unpredictably, on the caprice of government to spread some money around that they are well-known to have.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...In the heat of the struggle over what to do about Al Franken and confronted with a question about Bill Clinton, she quickly aligned her positions.

Not so! Not so, Professor. Or anyway not for most definitions of "quickly." It was about 3 weeks from the Franken story breaking to the suspiciously-near-unanimous call (from female Dem Sens) for him to resign. During that time Gillibrand's position was that Franken should be subject to a full Ethics investigation--that he essentially be given all available due process and that we all not prejudge the outcome. That was her position through 6 accusers (with varying degrees of seriousness of their accusations, etc).
Only when the 7th came forward--and, coincidentally I'm sure, it looked much more likely that Roy Moore would win his election--that Gillibrand "quickly" aligned her position.

I mean, if you're saying she aligned one way and then quickly realigned another way...sure, but that opportunism is part of what Trump is insulting her for!

n.n said...

Is loyalty good or bad?

Watergate? Bad.
Water Closet? Good?

Kevin said...

Trump called Gillibrand a lightweight flunky.

Gillibrand replied she would not stop what she was doing.

So she's not going to stop being a lightweight flunky?

That's how this exchange is scored.

If you have any doubt, he's the President dealing with China, NK, and revving up the economy. She's parroting words uttered by the real victims in hope of enhancing her stature through theirs.

That's what she said she was going to continue to do.

ArnieKovacks said...

Trump is going to tweet his way right out of office. What is it about him that he has such little control? This guy isn’t what I expected.

Drago said...

In other news of lefties/LLR's having to walk back a lie-filled story (AGAIN!):

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/12/08/slovenian-magazine-apologizes-to-melania-trump

Yes, this is payout to Melania for those horrific "escort" lies that Inga's pals peddled left and right months ago.

You know, all those leftists who are very "concerned" with how women are treated. LOL

Inga and LLR Chuck hardest hit.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Professor, I think you're reading WAY too much into Trump's tweet.

Maybe you're right and he meant all those things to lead your mind to those thoughts.

Then again maybe he's just living in people's heads rent free (including yours).

I'm just popping some more corn....

Winning!

Drago said...

ArnieKovacks: "Trump is going to tweet his way right out of office."

Summary: Trump is veering dangerously close to violating the Anti-tweeting clause of the US Constitution.

tim in vermont said...

What is best in life? To drive your enemies before you in defeat, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Trump knows how to live. That's for fucking sure.

n.n said...

It sounds almost as though he's asserting that campaign contributions are bribes

He's characterizing Gillibrand as double-faced and untrustworthy. Perhaps she's a double or free-agent that only serves her interests.

n.n said...

re: untrustworthy

Part of "The Reckoning", I suppose. That has exposed the principles and Choices of both men and women to public scrutiny.

Curious George said...

In every picture of Gillibrand with Bill Clinton she is smiling from ear to ear. Bill must have given her a cigar. In toro.

Humperdink said...

"You can't silence me ....."

Isn't that Fauxahontas said when Trump tweet-trashed her?

These chicks can't be/won't be silenced (thankfully). They continue to forget the worlds greatest political counter-puncher resides in the White House. Keep talking ladies.

tim in vermont said...

t sounds almost as though he's asserting that campaign contributions are bribes

You do know that he ran on the idea that he wasn't for sale, because nobody could buy him. That, of course is what really set off the swamp. He got elected spending a fraction of what Hillary spent. He wasn't off in Hollywood collecting huge checks from Harvey Weinstein, for example, he was campaigning in places like fucking Plattsburgh, NY, very close to Gillibrand's original district, BTW, while Hillary couldn't find the time in her schedule to talk to people who couldn't write seven figure checks.

I can't figure out why so many lefties don't see Trump as an ally, except for the fact that they aren't really who they say they are, but are just spouting so much rhetoric in defense of the power of the white (Hollywood/Silicon Valley) left.

Sarah Palin couldn't be bought either, but since she didn't have a lot of money, and didn't want to spend all of her time fundraising, they were able to destroy her pretty easily.

Unknown said...

Tim in Vermont: Point--is this, in fact, the lamentations of their women (let's all assume that "women" are involved. In today's leftist world, we have to clarify this. Gillibrand may well identify as a Ficus, for all I know. If she does, I recommend avoiding Weinstein)?

I'm not sure we are at the lamentation part yet. Maybe after Trump gets to slam the door shut on illegal immigration. Then we can hear the lamentations of McConnell as well as Schumer, so I guess that is the lamentations of the womenfolk then.

--Vance

exiledonmainstreet said...

Found at Instapundit:

THE HARDCORE LEFTIES AT COUNTERPUNCH AREN’T IMPRESSED WITH “THE RESISTANCE:” The Year of the Headless Liberal Chicken.. “At this point, the amount of utterly baseless, contradictory propaganda, mass hysteria, and just flat out insanity the ruling classes have demanded they swallow is more than any human mind, no matter how medicated, could possibly handle. Is it any wonder so many of them of lost it and started seeing Nazis and Russians coming out of the woodwork? Just consider what the average liberal has been forced to try to cognitively reconcile since the tragic events of last November.”

First time I ever agreed with anything in Counterpunch."The headless liberal chicken" is a perfect description of the RussiaRussiaRussia crowd.

You know, Inga, it's bad when a bunch of Commies (who hate Trump just as much as you do) look at liberals like you and decide you're the insane ones.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Inga said...Your President is a pig who just sexualy harassed a female Senator.

Are we into Poe's Law territory here? How in the holy hell could Trump's tweet ever be considered sexual harassment? To claim that even in jest is to diminish the meaning of the actual term.

That must be a parody...and yet I think Inga's serious. Strange days.

Francisco D said...

Michael K. "I find it hard to understand a lawyer who doesn't know that."

Chuck is as likely to be a lawyer as he is a life-long Republican. The phoniness is as obvious as Inga's cut and paste jobs.

Static Ping said...

I was thinking that "USED!" was applied to Trump. Gillibrand asks for money and presumably gets some, then turns on the benefactor.

I do think it is possible to be a flunky and be disloyal, though it typically does involve switching allegiances. She was a fluky for the Clintons, then when the situation was no longer to her benefit she becomes a flunky for Schumer. The point is she does what she is told.

That said, I am not sure that this applies to Gillibrand. From what I have seen of her career, all of her positions are negotiable. She went from a somewhat conservative "blue dog" Democrat from upstate New York to a standard New York liberal almost the very moment she was appointed to the Senate, tossing aside long held positions for the exact opposite positions, especially on guns. We are seeing the same here with the Clintons. She comes across as a very ambitious phony playing a game. She'll play the role of flunky if it suits her purposes, but she'll pretty much do anything to get ahead.

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Inga said...
"Your President is a pig who just sexualy harassed a female Senator. Of course he was serious."

I don't think that she gets it. If Gillbrand is going to attack the President, she can expect to be hit back. That is the name of the game. It is this blatant hypocrisy that has turned so many people away from modern feminism. Reminds me of a TV show last night, where the girl wanted to play on the boys' team in high school. After a big fight by her parents, she was allowed to. After one day, she was begging to be back on the girls' team. Politics doesn't work like a family, where the girls are allowed to taunt the boys, and the boys can't hit back. Or, indeed, the American Justice system where a woman can verbally abuse her husband for years with impunity (I.e. engage in female violence), but if he ever hits back, he goes to jail. National politics is too important. Lives and livelihoods are at stake. Too important to allow the sort of double standard being demanded by Inga and the rest of the pussy hat brigade.

tim in vermont said...

Per Inga, women are hothouse flowers who are not made to stand up to the rigors of modern politics.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder if a rodeo clown dressed up like Trump would be sent to re-education?

tcrosse said...

If you can't stand the heat, you should stay in the kitchen ?

Humperdink said...

Inga sez: "Your President is a pig who just sexually harassed a female Senator."

So if you attack a woman, no matter the basis, it's sexual harassment?

Reminds me when Obambi was president. Disagree with his policies and you were a racist. Which is why you are wasting your time debating a commie-pinko lib.

Bruce Hayden said...

"There are some mixed values in this tweet. Is loyalty good or bad? Gillibrand doesn't get credit for being loyal to Schumer. She gets called "a total flunky" for that. But she gets knocked for being disloyal to Trump and disloyal to Bill and Hillary."

Chuckie Schumer is the new Dingy Harry Reid, favorite bogey man for Republicans. Guilt by association. Yes, he may be better looking and more articulate than Reid, but he is a NYC Democrat, maybe only a small step up, in our view, than SF Democrats like senile Pelosi. Last year's special election in MT featured attack ads showing pictures of Pelosi and the Dem candidate together, essentially saying that a vote for him is a vote for her, because he would vote just as he was told to by her. No surprise - it worked. Much of the country doesn't want Representatives who would vote as instructed by SF Democrat Pelosi. I expect similar ads next year for sitting Dem Senators running for reelection being associated with swarmy NYC Dem Senator, and voting just as he tells them to. Of course, since she probably owes her Senate seat to him, she really does vote just like he wants her too. But I would expect that many of the Dem Senators from Trump states running for reelection to be connected in this way to odious Minority Leader Schumer, probably with pictures of both (maybe even together), and a note about how often the candidate voted the same way as Schumer did.

Ken B said...

J M Keynes: When the facts change I change my opinion. What do you do?
Inga: Change my screen name.

Inga said...

“J M Keynes: When the facts change I change my opinion. What do you do?
Inga: Change my screen name.”

Really? Where, when? I’m still here on and off today. Busy busy busy. See you fine folks later after the results of the election are in.

John Pickering said...

I'm surprised that in this context Ann doesn't pursue her analysis of the president as a shrewd thinker whose essential persona is that of a humorist or comedian. Here's an Althousian analysis: Trump is "toying" with sexual innuendo; playing with toys is fun; implying that Gillibrand is a whore is just pointing out a funny thing that reveals the subtlety of the President's way of thinking. Face it, the guy is flat-out droll!

Bruce Hayden said...

Part of why a lot of Trump's constituency loves him is that he refuses to play the politically correct game that Inga and her pussy hat brigade try to engage him in. They want equality when it is convenient, and special considerations the rest of the time, just because of their sex (race, religion, etc). They can attack you, but you can't hit back because you don't have as many victimhood points as they do (apparently part of intersectionality). Most of the time, Trump just doesn't bother calling BS on that, just ignores their claim of special privilege, and attacks them back just as if they too were rich white Christian men. Or makes fun of them for it. And he is our hero for doing what we wished all of our politicians would do, which is to stop buying into the PC BS. The left uses it as a weapon, and it is effective with so many Republican politicians, to their, and our, detriment.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Pickering - but, of course, Trump doesn't actually call her a whore, and some of it is subtle enough that he has almost plausible deniability. Of course she is a whore - most politicians are political whores. That is, unfortunately, the name of the game. The difference with a male opponent is that Trump could probably literally call them a "whore", instead of Implying it, as he has to do with female politicians.

Ken B said...

Inga is away today. Busy. Except seconds after my jibe. What a coincidence. Maybe eagle eyed Fran tipped her off.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

By the by: no one wants to "silence" you Sen. Gillibrand baby, we want you to keep talking as loudly as possible while we all point and laugh at your many hypocritical statements, muddled positions, contradictory standards, and so on.

The only thing we ask is that someone else get to speak, too! That's the problem with the Lefty idea of "conversation:" it usually means "we good people on the Left get to talk and the rest of you knuckledraggers must listen and obey." Any time someone else dares to talk back it's "oh no, how dare you try and silence me!" It's really a pathetic reaction...and a bit gendered too (implicitly casting the woman as vulnerable to attack by a strong/overpowering man, except in this case it's a brave woman bucking the gender role to nobly fight back...etc).

Michael K said...

To repeat a previous comment, we are in the third age of civilization.

The first was the age of Honor, where you defended your self, sometimes with violent results. That went back to ancient times and was revived in the US Frontier where law was a day's ride (or more) away,

Then came the age of Authority where the police and the government usurped the right to retaliate or defend.

You no longer got personal revenge for crimes. The police took over and violence was restricted to the State,

Now, we are in the age of the Victim, where victimhood conveys honor and status, Bullying is the big no no.

If one can argue that you are more victimized than someone else, you are more virtuous. Virtue is sought as in the days of the Puritans and it is no coincidence that the center of this movement seems to be in the northeast,where the real Puritans once ruled.

The age of the Victim may eventually come to an end and we may be back to Honor, or at least Authority.

The slogan of this movement is ""When seconds count the police are minutes away."

The political left tries to protect the Victim culture with gun control.

Trump is a bit like the Honor culture with his tweets and that may be his attraction,

exiledonmainstreet said...

Don't play dumber than you are, Inga. You've changed your screen name many times on this site and denied you were posting as one of the "Unknowns" when it was obvious you were, because your special brand of stupid is easy to spot.

Acting coy and playing silly identity games makes you look like a pathetic old lady.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Lest we forget, Gillibrand championed the cause of the liar who dragged that mattress all over the Columbia campus and made the life of an innocent guy hell just because he lost interest in her. Gillibrand helped to make that little sociopath a hero of the pussy hat crowd without any regard at all for the rights of the accused man.

Now I'm supposed to care because her feeelz are hurt (and I don't think they are, really). Tar and feathers would be too good for her.

Darrell said...

Watch out Inga! There a link on Drudge about a new AI that can identify two billion people in seconds. They'll get all your sockpuppets.

Brian McKim and/or Traci Skene said...

Defining piggery upward. Now, a man who serially romances women, marries each, has children by each, continues to have a hand in raising them, maintains a relationship with each and a relationship with the children... is a "pig?" How wide is our "pig spectrum" when we have men who would impregnate multiple women, stay with none of them for any appreciable amount of time and ignore the offspring (looking at you, Hollywood). Perhaps "pig" is a bit strong when it comes to DJT. Perhaps my standards are not as rigid at Inga's. It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Inga said...

OK, I’ll put my cookie dough down to say that Exiled, you are a dumb bitch. I have said when I changed my name to “Inga” that I was one of the Unknowns. Also, you continue to refer to me as an old lady, yet I’m younger than Althouse and only a couple of years older than you. You want to say Althouse is an old lady too? Why not call yourself an old bitter spinster while you’re at it?

And that other dummy Darrell still thinks I’m fake Inga. LOL!

n.n said...

I was thinking that "USED!" was applied to Trump.

There is a question of cause and effect. Most people contribute to support a position. A politician that follows the prevailing winds, or is a double or free-agent, would lead you to conclude that you were in fact used. Twice shy and all. Gillibrand must have had an extreme makeover to warrant the criticism.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Why not call yourself an old bitter spinster while you’re at it?"

LOL, because I'm not one.

You've changed your nic here many times and then didn't own up to it and people here know it.

No wonder you like Gillibrand. She defends liars.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Perhaps the most apt nic for you would be "The Headless Liberal Chicken"

“At this point, the amount of utterly baseless, contradictory propaganda, mass hysteria, and just flat out insanity the ruling classes have demanded they swallow is more than any human mind, no matter how medicated, could possibly handle. Is it any wonder so many of them of lost it and started seeing Nazis and Russians coming out of the woodwork?"

Inga said...

“LOL, because I'm not one.”

Oh yes you are, you’ve said so yourself on these threads numerous times. Don’t play coy. No reason to be embarrased at being unmarried into your late 50’s.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I said I'm unmarried. I have never said I am bitter or unhappy, because I am not. So you're lying, Inga. Yet again.

Can you try to comment sometime without lying? Maybe that can be your New Year's Resolution. After you get that straightened out than perhaps you can move on to the goal of writing something logical. Perhaps by 2024, you'll manage it.

Angel-Dyne said...

exiled: Perhaps the most apt nic for you would be "The Headless Liberal Chicken"

I see yer LLR and raise you an HLC.

Angel-Dyne said...

“Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances, there should be a very different reaction. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him,” she said.

Uh, wut? Why?

Pure bafflegab.

Drago said...

Inga: "Really? Where, when?"

Two Althouse blog readers familiar with Ingas antics have reported that Inga is a blog name-changing demon!

And since we have 2 individuals vouching for this information, we all know that is sufficient for the MSM and Inga to go hog wild with the accusation.

Inga said...

“I said I'm unmarried. I have never said I am bitter or unhappy, because I am not.”

Yes never been married at the end of your 50’s. That’s OK, I’m not passing judgment or saying you’re ugly or anything. Your behavior belies your assertion that you are a happy person, or not a bitter person. You are on the top of the list of shitty commenters, I can’t even live up to your shitty standards, no matter how hard I try.

Now back to baking for my 4 children and 5 grandchildren. Lots of traditional Croatian and German cookies to make! Merry Christmas Exiled, I hope you get to enjoy your siblings children. It must get lonely on the Holidays for you.

Just a tip, if you want to mess with me, expect me to give you some of your own medicine.

Drago said...

Inga: "...I’m not passing judgment or saying you’re ugly ..."

Behold, the modern feminist!

Can't imagine why young women, in increasing numbers, do not want to be associated with people like Inga.

I simply can't imagine why that would be.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program of "feminists" and their LLR allies attacking the children and looks of conservative women.

Michael K said...

Just a tip, if you want to mess with me, expect me to give you some of your own medicine.

Can I have some, Inga? I need a good laugh.

Kevin said...

Elizabeth Warren responded by insinuating Gillibrand is a slut:

Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted.

Rusty said...

ArnieKovacks said...
"Trump is going to tweet his way right out of office. What is it about him that he has such little control? This guy isn’t what I expected."

You're paying attention to wrong tweet. The reaction is what's important.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" Your behavior belies your assertion that you are a happy person, or not a bitter person"

LOL! Inga logic: "Anybody who doesn't like me and makes fun of me must be bitter and unhappy!"

And this is a doozy too - any unmarried woman in her 50's must be ugly. Wow, Inga, how progressive and enlightened is that? What a feminist! Back to your birth year of 1935 with you!

Once again, you show that you are a total phony and don't believe in the things you pretend to believe in. Once again, you show that your brain is incapable of putting a logical thought together.

"Oh, mom, do we HAVE to go to grannie's house? All she does is rant and rave about Russians and Trump and politics all the time! She's so boooorrrrring!"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...I have never understood Trump's self-serving claim that the reason that he was a donor to prominent national Democrats was because he was a businessman who needed political help, and so that is why he was a donor.
...
My personal suspicion is that Trump made donations as part of his personal/celebrity aura. He made a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, so that Bill and Hillary would attend Trump's third wedding. And I suppose if your business is "personal celebrity" then maybe the donation is a wise one. And business-related, in that sense.


So...you have in fact understood the claim? Self-serving makes no sense, there, when the man is obviously describing something about his own past in a way designed to paint himself in a good light. "Politician makes self-serving statement!" Wow, must be a first, huh pal?
Anyway what could the point of your post even be? "Gee I don't get why Trump did this thing, except I clearly know exactly why he did this thing." That's just a pure waste of everyone's time.
It'd be funny watching you try and get in a sly zinger if it weren't so pathetic. "Oh wow, Trump isn't a great businessman, he's really just a celebrity TV personality who happened to have a semi-crummy real estate business/empire at one point...no one told us! We, the unbelievably stupid & ignorant Trump voters/Trump supporters/non-Trump haters just didn't know until you, the brilliant Chuck, found a slick way to tell us. Now we see the light--down with Trump!"
Does some version of that actually play in your head, man? That's sad. Like: "Sad!"

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Just a tip, if you want to mess with me, expect me to give you some of your own medicine."

Oh, I'm so afraid!! Her insults are so witty and original! "You're ugly!" I'm sure that would get high marks from her grandchildren's 3rd grade class!

Seriously, what a terrifying fate - to become old without ever maturing.

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

I still want Inga to tell us who verified the date and location on the yearbook to be Moore's handwriting, if it isn't the same "handwriting expert" she's relying on now. You know, the expert who "verified" and "testified" that Moore wrote EVERYTHING that Wilson claimed he did... including what Wilson has now admitted to writing herself.

Doesn't that matter? Why not?

Qwinn said...

Oops, sorry, meant that for the Moore thread. Inga seems to prefer hanging here today though for some Unknown reason.

tim in vermont said...

I doubt you are original Inga myself. Letting all of the Scott Walker posts pass without comment.

tim in vermont said...

It's an inference, not an assumption, for the poorly educated. Ahem, Inga

exiledonmainstreet said...

tim in vermont said...
I doubt you are original Inga myself. Letting all of the Scott Walker posts pass without comment."

She has nothing to say about them because it's becoming clear even to the thickest lib that those on her side were acting like fascists. And I don't hear many liberals bitching that much about Walker anymore, because they realized he's not going anywhere. Their screaming and bitching and machinations amounted to nothing. They're turned their attention to Trump.

Now the same tactics are being applied to Trump (jeez, the Left simply can't accept elections that don't go their way). Let's hope the left has as much "success" against Trump as they did against Walker.

wwww said...



RE: Trump donating to Democrats.

People think that Trump has been a life-long Republican? What? They don't think he became "Republican" about 6 or 7 years ago? Why do people think he invited Hillary & Bill to his wedding?

Jim at said...

Your President is a pig who just sexualy harassed a female Senator. Of course he was serious.

And the fact it pissed you off to no end makes my day.

I enjoy your misery. You deserve it.

CJ said...

She has nothing to say about them because it's becoming clear even to the thickest lib that those on her side were acting like fascists. And I don't hear many liberals bitching that much about Walker anymore, because they realized he's not going anywhere. Their screaming and bitching and machinations amounted to nothing. They're turned their attention to Trump.

Now the same tactics are being applied to Trump (jeez, the Left simply can't accept elections that don't go their way). Let's hope the left has as much "success" against Trump as they did against Walker.


My God. Do you remember the rending of garments that took place in the comments section of this blog while Walker was being (unsuccessfully) recalled and during the Fleebagging Incident? If the NorKs had nuked Milwaukee there wouldn't have been as much apocalyptic talk as there was during those times.

And now - things are pretty good, blue collar jobs are coming back, the public sector unions have had their boot removed from the necks of the people of Wisconsin, there's no longer a gestapo running secret investigations against private citizens for wrongthink.

It makes you wonder if the Left actually believes any of its predictions and is just constantly wrong, or if they're just a bunch of LARPers - the mirror image of the conservative survivalist.

Ryan McLaughlin said...

Not sure if anyone reads this deep in the comments but I took the tweet to mean that Trump was "USED." It could also mean Bill and Hillary were used and I think the idea Trump is going for is to start testing "linguistic kill shots" (to borrow from Scott Adams) that might work against her in the 2020 election. He's trying to brand her as a user of people.

CJ said...

I should say - a bunch of LARPers that ultimately don't even believe their own cause. They just need something to rend garments about. If it weren't Republicans, it'd be whales, or fur, or coal, or starving Africans, etc.

CJ said...

Not sure if anyone reads this deep in the comments but I took the tweet to mean that Trump was "USED." It could also mean Bill and Hillary were used and I think the idea Trump is going for is to start testing "linguistic kill shots" (to borrow from Scott Adams) that might work against her in the 2020 election. He's trying to brand her as a user of people.

I'm still here :)

I think it was a pretty wily selection of word and position of the word - there are a couple different ways you can take it. Like Gillibrand is a used up old whore, or that the Clintons use people, or that the Clintons got used by Gillibrand.

I think you're right about the kill shot. He may have gotten it right on the first try, too.

KittyM said...

@Kevin "Elizabeth Warren responded by insinuating Gillibrand is a slut"

Um. no. That is not what slut-shaming means.

KittyM said...

@Bruce Hayden "If Gillbrand is going to attack the President, she can expect to be hit back."

I agree with you. It's politics after all and these two people are on opposite sides of the aisle, so to speak. Democracy thrives on lively, even aggressive debate.

But - Trump's tweets aren't anything like that. Trump's tweet here for example is just nasty and wretched and low-class. I have no views on Gillibrand* but Trump is POTUS for goodness sake. Shouldn't the standard of give and take be a little higher than this? Not *nicer* or *friendlier* - not even more non-partisan. But just more substantial and impressive.

I mean, I know I am biased already because I am not a Trump supporter. I would doubtless be critiquing him whatever he was saying. But don't you guys who support him, don't you cringe when you read this stuff? Don't you wish "your guy" was sometimes clever and charming and brilliant?

*I didn't have any views on her, but this tweet was commented on by bloggers and others I follow on Twitter so now I know much more about her and begin to think she looks cool. So from that point of view, this has rather backfired.

Darrell said...

And that other dummy Darrell still thinks I’m fake Inga. LOL!

Did you ever use the name Allie Oop? Were you a nurse? Did you date a conservative plummer? If not, you are not the original Inga--which makes you Fake Inga and dumb for trying to pull this shit. Got it? Or do I have to type slower?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Did you date a conservative plummer?"

If memory serves, Inga didn't date a conservative plumber. She just rolled in the hay with him the night Walker won the recall election. They were both tipsy.

He woke up and ran the hell out of there and she has never mentioned again. He probably headed straight for an AA meeting.

Kevin said...

Um. no. That is not what slut-shaming means.

"Slut-shaming is the practice of criticizing women and girls who are perceived to violate expectations of behavior and appearance regarding issues related to sexuality."

As for Trump's "she would do anything" for campaign contributions comment, it was Warren who apparently pictured her colleague handing out sexual favors for cash.

exiledonmainstreet said...

KittyM said: "Um. no. That is not what slut-shaming means."

What does it mean then, if not shaming a woman who is a slut? "Slut-shaming" strikes me as pretty clear English.

The term was invented, I believe, by feminists who were angered by a Canadian cop who said women could avoid assault by not dressing like sluts. The response was to - dress like sluts and parade down the street. "Slut walks" were then held in other cities.

So when you say someone is "slut-shaming" a woman you are admitting that the woman is indeed being or behaving like a slut. You just don't believe she should be made to feel ashamed of it.

tim in vermont said...

She has nothing to say about them because it's becoming clear even to the thickest lib that those on her side were acting like fascists.

No. I don't think so,

Here are excerpts from emails from the persecutors (not a misspelling) using the power of the GAB in Wisconsin to collect "opposition research" on Republicans.

“Remember, in brief, this was a bastardization of politics and our state is being run by corporations and billionaires,” Falk wrote. “This isn’t democracy to say the least,

Here is a recent quote from Obama that the new Inga posted.

“We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly,” -Barack Obama

This is the same Obama who has sicked the FBI, NSA, CIA, and the DOJ on his political opponent, just like Democrats did in Wisconsin.

tim in vermont said...

"Slut-shaming" strikes me as pretty clear English.

There you go, making sense again.

KittyM said...

@tim in vermont @exiledonmainstreet @Kevin

I know this probably never ever happens...but I think you're all basically right. Sorry.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Thank you, KittyM.

Inga said...

“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”

Wiki

Inga said...

“ Slut shaming
Noun Edit
slut-shaming (uncountable)

The act of making a person (especially a woman) feel guilty or inferior for sexual activity, desires, expression, or circumstances that deviate from traditional or orthodox gender expectations or religious or cultural standards.”

Wiktionary

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 232   Newer› Newest»