I don’t know, he’s probably funnier.
I don’t know, he’s probably funnier.
Anyone else watch that weird Alicia Keyes song that ended with the video montage of sepia-toned presidential portraits that were then shattered, revealing the giant Hillary sitting there weirdly grinning at the crowd?
Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about. From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.
Trump was definitely not my first choice: I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz. As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.
My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election. While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting. While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality. So what to do? One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way. Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.
Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes. During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power. I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.
But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues? One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year. My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.
Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma. Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance. Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.
In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles. I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.
But let’s examine the situation. We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative. We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power. Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.” That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates. She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”
During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin. When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president. And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”
So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:
The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.
Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.
Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.
And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.
You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.
Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.
Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?
I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not. As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.
And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons. As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.” Barnes notes:
Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.
And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal. The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.
The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.
For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.” Hillary Clinton must not become president. If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.
So then, why Donald Trump? Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.
I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.
Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative. How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?
For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system. Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same: Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.
“She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital”
Indeed Democrat Party does often seem like an asylum for the mentally ill. And Bill and Hillary both fit the definition of Sociopath to a T.
DSM-IV Definition. Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Let’s be honest: The problems of American blacks today are caused largely by white intellectuals and politicians, and I mean the left-wing ones.
In the 1930s, such people created Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (google Margaret Sanger). In the 1960s, such people created the Welfare State (Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”) which annihilated the traditional black family and led generations of American inner-city blacks away from productive pursuits, into dead-ends of left-wing “community activism” and much worse.
And today, such people pander to (or sometimes form the white membership of) the group #BlackLivesMatter, which perversely tries to lead blacks into a dead-end of complaining, hateful racism against whites. If ever, after we entered the 20th century, there was some kind of plot by American whites to destroy blacks and keep them down: American left-liberalism would be it. (If.)
Racism is both an illusion and a real problem (as illusions sometimes can be). Racism in America is being fomented even as we speak, by privileged, white American left-liberals. Not racism in the sense that America discriminates terribly against blacks, but the opposite: racism in the sense that America wants to give blacks an unreal sense of entitlement. Racism in the sense that America throws crutches and deadweights to blacks (not helping hands) and foments mistaken beliefs, both about blacks and among blacks.
Whose fault is it? If, for your entire life, the rich white lady who gets away with every crime (*cough* Hillary among others) tells you that America OWES you a living and owes you intense accommodation of your whims and that she will use government (force) to make sure you get it, wouldn’t you begin to believe her? I would.
In effect and for generations, narcissistic American lefties have been trying to gaslight American blacks.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse used by narcissists in order to instill in their victims an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion to the point where they no longer trust their own memory, perception or judgment…
The intention is to, in a systematic way, target the victim’s mental equilibrium, self confidence, and self esteem so that they are no longer able to function in an independent way. Gaslighting involves the abuser to frequently and systematically withhold factual information from the victim, and replace it with false information.
And yet some people blame blacks, the recipients of systematic gaslighting by American leftists. And blame blacks on the basis of their race. In short: Yes, Virginia, some people are nasty racists.
As tragic, current events have put “race” into the news and caused GayPatriot to increase its coverage, I have encountered perhaps 1 or 2 of these people in our comments. If “conservative” in America means that you value human dignity, independence and freedom – if – then I can’t consider these people conservatives; I personally, and sadly, am forced to think of them as accomplices to the vicious and evil schemes of the Left.
…Negroes seem incapable of governing or producing anything of value.
Black people are a violent, criminal, underclass.
If all blacks disappeared, America’s cities would become much safer and more livable.
I could spell out what’s wrong with the above quotes. (For example: What about white meth addicts and dealers, as a violent and criminal underclass? What about certain white Democrat leaders, like the Clintons or Jon Corzine (D), as a violent and criminal overclass? What about brilliant black Americans like Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown and Allen West? How about if we take people as individuals and categorize them by their behavior and ideas and character content, not by something dumb like their genes and melanin content?)
I could spell it out, but another part of me says: Why bother? Hate is hate. It’s part of racism. That being so, it’s enough to say that anyone who wants to bring it here to GayPatriot ought to take it elsewhere.
I want less criminal violence in America: less from poor people – who may be white or black or any race; AND, less criminal violence from certain rich people and top leaders in the Political-Financial Complex – who, again, may be white or black or any so-called “race”.
In the wake of the murders of five police officers by an unhinged racist black lunatic, Hillary Clinton says…
“I will call for white people like myself to put ourselves in the shoes of those African-American families who fear every time their children go somewhere, who have to have the talk about how to really protect themselves when they’re the ones that should be expecting protection from encounters with police,” said Clinton.
Maybe you should put yourself in the heels of an ordinary black person who mishandled classified documents and lied under oath to cover it up; you’d probably be in jail.
Is there anyone who epitomizes privilege better than Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Update: The Zuckerberg Personal Data Accumulator goes to bat for Hillary: Page of memes critical of Hillary Clinton taken down by order of Facebook.
…who sought-and-received such special treatment that now, in her own person, she embodies the most corrupt, disgraceful and dangerous aspects of American political life.
Allen B. West gives a summary:
…here’s what FBI Director Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton and this email server episode:
- He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
- He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
- He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
- He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
- And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.
Consider that just last week, there was a secret, private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch…Over the weekend, quietly, Hillary Clinton visited FBI headquarters and then came out to give an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd — who stated he had inside information there would be no charges. Then…Director Comey announces a press conference — as the pre-flight checks were being conducted on Air Force One, preparing to fly President Obama and Hillary Clinton on a campaign ride to North Carolina…Comey announces no charges, and Air Force One takes off. Barack Obama is flying, on taxpayer dollar, not with someone under criminal investigation — but a recently-exonerated Hillary Clinton. This, Ladies and Gents, is the “policy of political corruption” on full display.
When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together on that stage [in North Carolina last weekend], you saw two people who abandoned Americans to die and lied about it.
In short, and even if we leave aside the Benghazi deaths, Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence – and obstruction of justice (lying to prevent investigation). She was given a giant pass, for no reason except politics.
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document … relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both” 18 USC 793 (f)
Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer thinks it’s unfair that Ben and Jerry’s hasn’t done a Hillary-themed ice cream flavor. She is calling on Ben & Jerry’s to create one called “Historic Raspberry Chocolate” in honor of her coronation as the Democrat nominee for President.
She also wants men to be charged 20% more for the privilege of purchasing this flavor; because income inequality.
One, it’s really hard to come up with a flavor of ice cream that’s redolent of an unwanted kiss from an alcoholic grandmother.
Second, Barbara Boxer is an idiot. Well done, California, in electing her three times to the Senate.
Actual Headline: Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy
I’ll save you the trouble: Basically, all of her scandals and crimes are just Republicans making sh-t up.
That’s the actual argument.
And it’s good enough if you’re a braindead LIV who only cares about getting your FSFTG, or if you’re just a Democrat who’s as hopelessly corrupt as she is.
I guess that means the four dead people at Benghazi were all married or dating.
Surely we’ve all known since the 1990s that when a Clinton speaks, one must parse the precise words assiduously and meticulously.
Two days ago, the former Secretary of State appeared on CBS’s “Face The Nation” where host John Dickerson interviewed her about a range of issues. At about the 13-minute mark (sorry, in my browser, the time-scroll thingy doesn’t show where you are, so you may have to suffer through some asshole going on about how great he is for the first part), Dickerson asks about Brian Pagliano which introduces the email topic. At about 13:30, in response to his question about the classification of emails on her server, in toto she says the following (my emphasis added):
I also know that there were reports today about the hundreds of officials and the thousands of emails that they were sending back and forth that have been been looked at and classified retroactively. This really raises serious questions about this whole process I think. Colin Powell summed it up well when he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified; he called it an absurdity. So I’m hoping that we’ll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification. Remember I’m the one who asked that all of my emails be made public. I’ve been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it’s also true that when something is made public everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that’s what’s happening here, and we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there.
Dickerson then moves on to Libya and doesn’t return to the topic of the emails.
Notice what she’s not saying. She’s not saying that the information was retroactively classified, but that the emails were retroactively classified. If you’re paying close attention, you’ll note that this is a meaningless tautology. Of course the emails weren’t classified until after the fact… Who would have classified them when they were sent?
As background, when sending email via the secured systems used to house classified information (at least in the DoD, with which I’m familiar, but I’m betting State has a similar system), every time you hit send, you’re prompted to select a classification for the email. Is it Top Secret? Secret? Confidential? Is it SCI? Or is it Unclass? If so, is it FOUO? Does it contain PII (personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, etc.)? Depending on which box you tick (and you can’t send without ticking a box… the message will remain in your Outbox), markings are automatically affixed to the message, i.e., ‘the email gets marked classified‘. Naturally if you’re sending emails from an unsecured system, these procedure doesn’t exist, and at that time, the email isn’t designated as ‘classified’.
If, say, four years later, as a result of a FOIA request, someone who knows about classification goes through and reads this “unclassified” email, guess what he’s going to do: “Holy shit! This email should be classified!” Suddenly, he’s ‘retroactively’ classifying emails. Emails containing information, by the way, that was quite likely classified at the time it was sent, but that wasn’t marked as such because the careless individual who chose to send it via unclassified (and therefore unregulated) means didn’t slap a classification on it Herself. But then, why would she do that, and raise the obvious issues at the time?
To suggest that all this was just someone going back (overzealously, and likely with malice of course) and slapping classified markings over stuff that was completely innocuous at the time it was sent is completely insincere and meant (as so much Madame Secretary and her husband says) to throw the credulous off her track.
It’s like Bill Cosby saying, ‘Yea sure. She complains now that she’s woken up. But she didn’t say anything about it at the time!’
Parse the words… remember, we were told that none of the info was classified.. Then it wasn’t marked classified. This is just the next step in the evolution.
The arrogance is astounding, but only persists because there’s a history of getting away with it.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
Sally Miller looked on in amusement as the man who would become the 42nd President of the United States slipped into her own frilly black nightgown.
The former Miss Arkansas has never forgotten how her younger lover proceeded to dance around the bedroom, serenading her with his saxophone and reducing her to a fit of giggles.
This playful scene was typical of the laughter-filled nights that ex-beauty queen Miller enjoyed with Bill Clinton during their 1983 affair, she tells Daily Mail Online in an exclusive interview.
Oh, she also says Hillary is a lesbian and their marriage is a total sham… which is going to come as a shock to anyone who’s been in a coma since 1991.
H/T: Legal Insurrection.
At the Washington Post, Clinton Media Operative Chris Cilizza tries to explain that her six-figure speeches to Wall Street weren’t really a big deal because Wall Street hedge fund managers really do think it’s worth six figures to hear Hillary yap for half an hour on what it was like to be Secretary of State under Obama.
I generally take Clinton at her word when she describes what the nature of her speeches were: Recounting high profile events and her role in them. “I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after Bin Laden,” she told Chuck on Thursday night.
That makes perfect sense to me; if you are paying several hundred thousand dollars to hear someone like Clinton speak, what you generally want to hear is what it was like to be her in a variety of big/important moments. These speeches, I bet, are largely just a string of anecdotes by Clinton.
Yeah, those honoraria weren’t bribes at all, and you’re silly for thinking so.
With everything else failing, the Hillary Campaign is down to the last refuge of scoundrels: You’re a misogynist if you don’t vote for Hillary.
This weekend, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (you remember her, the fat broad who helped North Korea get nuclear weapons) declared… I am not making this up … women who don’t support Hillary Clinton deserve to burn in hell.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had a special message for female voters Saturday on the campaign trail with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“And just remember,” she said at a rally in Concord, N.H, flanked by Clinton and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Gloria Steinem, whose famous quote “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was instrumental in transforming feminism from a movement seeking equal access to economic and social opportunity into a Cult of Misandry, sneered that is women aren’t supporting Hillary, it’s only because they want to meet boys. Because women… at least Democrat women… make decisions entirely because of middle school crushes. Hillary’s corruption, lawbreaking, influence peddling, and general nastiness could not possibly be a factor, according to the paleo-feminists.
The feminist movement is at an odd place. On the one hand, they want rape to be redefined to include “previously consensual sex that a woman changed her mind about after the guy lost interest in her” so they can prosecute campus males as sex offenders and destroy their lives (thus creating a hostile, anti-male environment on college campuses). But on the other hand, their preferred candidate, Mrs. Clinton, has a long history of attacking women who were sexually abused by her husband; these women, rather than being believed, were attacked by the feminist establishment as “trailer trash.”
Democrats and feminists are not motivated by principles, but by a lust for power. Bill Clinton is/was a powerful man, and feminists gained power through their alliance with him. Hence, they overlooked his sexual predations, because power was more important. Now, they rally around the wife that enabled him… because as her power increases, so does theirs.
60% of the Republican Caucus vote in Iowa went to black or Hispanic candidates. But if you are uncomfortable with minorities and prefer to vote for old white people, the Democrat Party had a debate last night. It pretty much went like this:
Hillary: Vote for me. I’m a woman.
Sanders: Vote for me, I’m a socialist.
Hillary: I’m pretty socialist, too. I’ll give you free stuff.
Sanders: Grr, I’m the real socialist. I’ll give you ALL THE FREE STUFF! And I hate Wall Street.
Hillary: I hate Wall Street too.
Sanders: No you don’t. They give you money.
Hillary: Big money corrupts our entire political process… except for me.
Sanders: I’ll take all of Wall Street’s money and give it away to voters. Then everyone will be as rich as a hedge fund manager. Because that’s how economics works.
Hillary: I hate the NRA.
Sanders: I hate Climate Deniers.
Hillary: I hate the Koch Brothers.
Sanders: I hate you.
Hillary: I hate you.
Sanders: In closing, Vote for me, Free Stuff, bitches!
Hillary: Vote for me, I’m a woman.