“So what is it that makes half of Trump supporters so ‘deplorable’, to put it in Herself’s own words”, I ask some of my “progressive” friends.
Is he anti-immigrant? Well, anti-illegal-immigrant, yadda yadda, sure.
And there’s a shopping list of other complaints. And I may even echo a few of ’em.
But the one I hear – whispered conspiratorially, as if they’ll get spanked if they’re heard saying it – is “some of them are birthers“.
To which I respond “Then he’s in splendid company”.
The screen grab below is from a 2007 memo from Clinton strategist Mark Penn, essentially urging her to go “birther” on Obama, who was still well behind in the polls.
Clinton was the original “birther”.
Oh, the “fact check” industry among the media’s pet Democrats says it’s not true – by dint of the fact that Hillary has never physically been busted at a Birther rally, herself, in person.
But even “Factcheck.org” admits that it was Herself’s supporters who were the original…
…well, deplorables.
We are in agreement again! Hillary absolutely floated the birther crap in the 2008 campaign.
To her credit however, she also recanted it, which Donald Trump and his supporters have not done. Trump for example did not do that at a rally during the primaries when someone asked a question from the audience asserting Obama was not born in this country and claiming, wrongly (see factcheck.org) that Obama is a Christian, not Muslim.
THAT is deplorable.
I understand Mike Pence failed in his visit to DC yesterday to rally his fellow Republicans against the deplorable claim by Hillary – and they wouldn’t support Pence or Trump, instead claiming that yes, SOME of Trump supporters ARE deplorable.
It doesn’t matter if you are a hard working American if you are ALSO a member of the KKK or similar groups that are against other Americans – black, Latino, LGBT, Asian, Native American, Muslims, Jewish, anti-Veterans, women, etc.
Pence refused to call out David Duke as a deplorable human being (and an American) claiming he was not a name caller.
I found that to be among the worst hypocrisy I’ve seen so far. The man has no integrity and is pretty foolish if he thinks no one has noticed all his name calling.
Given the high disapproval ratings of both Pence and Trump, I think Hillary was right; there really are not that many Trump supporters on the right, and there are a sizeable percentage (if not half) who are genuinely deplorable bigots who have hateful views of America and of Americans.
Pointing the accusatory finger at Hillary without acknowledging that she recanted is cherry picking Mitch; it is dishonest. That kind of dishonesty is deplorable too.
Off topic, but an update. I’m currently playing telephone tag with missed phone calls back and forth with Ben Peacock, one of the primary attorneys on the Wetterling case, re my inquiries about the gun used.
It was reported earlier today elsewhere that the gun had been recovered, that Heinrich had given it away to someone else after shooting Wetterling.
While the press is indicating that the sexual assaults stopped after Wetterling died, the authorities also believed Heinrich was responsible for a November ’89 arson case. Interesting that the authorities are asserting that it was a reliance on porn that replaced assaults over that 27 year period, given the anti-porn public health plank in the GOP platform and the increase in porn, especially gay porn, during the GOP convention. Tsk tsk — the hypocrisy of the right, it burns. Just to clarlify: I’m not pro-porn, but I deplore the right’s anti-sexuality stance, and the general ignorance on the right when it comes to sexual orientation and reproduction issues.
My latest “factcheck” favorite is how they started their fact check by admitting they didn’t know what Trump had meant when he said we treat illegals better than veterans, but they rated it “4 Pinocchios” anyways. OK, we don’t know what hypothesis we’re testing, but we’re rejecting it? How is that possible?
factcheck is quickly becoming a laughingstock because of stuff like this.
Polls darken for Democrats
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/296189-polls-darken-for-democrats
Some are crediting her deplorable remark, but I think people are just plain sick of looking at that nasty woman and listening to her lie.
I’m beginning to believe Trump is going to win.
Don’t read this now. Wait until you’re home, in your favorite chair, with a nice libation in your hand.
http://observer.com/2016/09/polling-doomsday-for-hillary-clinton/
I’m beginning to believe Trump is going to win.
I’m not counting on anything until we get the “results” “reported” to us by……whoever.
There’s going to be so much leftist vote/voter fraud out there, what with SCOTUS at stake, it’ll rival Venezuela’s “election” results.
(ok maybe not quite THAT bad, but it’s going to make 2012 look like nothing)
Altho, imagine if Killary’s health issues DO finally cause her to have to drop out, and it’s too late to get ballots reprinted. I’d like to see the contortions the left is going to go thru to to get signs or people at the polls to remind everyone that Killary is not running and to vote for Kaine, or Biden, or whoever they’ll dredge up to replace her. Can you imagine the anguished howls of “disenfranchisement” that will accompany the inevitable SCOTUS case?
I know a little bit about the childhoods of 20th century Presidents. Except for ultra-rich blue bloods FDR and Kennedy, every President since 1920 (and probably before), grew up with a remarkably normal American childhood.
-They played in school bands
-Attended summer camps
-Were active in the Boy Scouts
-Had summer (and year-around) jobs
-Participated in school sports
-Marched in Fourth of July parades (this is a big one)
-Listened to veterans speak on Armistice day
-Were in class plays
-Most attended church regularly
-Many joined the military right out of high school
-One even sold insurance door-to-door for a while
But Obama. He started out his life in Indonesia, raised by his Atheist anti-American mother. Then moved to Hawaii to live with his bank president grandmother, where he hung out on the beach and smoked pot.
The note Mitch linked to above may be just Clinton politics, but there is much truth to it. Obama didn’t grow up like most Americans did. I think that is why he has so much dislike and contempt for America. Why he feels he needs to “fundamentally change” America.
I am with Bill. sHrillary’s fetid lifeless corpse will be dragged across the finish line by the MSM and corrupt 0bumbler appointed judges no matter the cost. I am begging to believe Messiah himself would not be able to beat sHrillary, never mind sTrumpet. And when sHrillary wins, descent into the banana republic depths will be complete. Stock up on toilet paper, boys!
Bill, I make offerings to Stroki, the Norse god of cerebral hemorrhage, every night.
Swiftee: LOL! Comment of the week!
I’m waiting for the debates, I don’t believe she’ll get under the skin of
Trump or get an edge on him. Her anxieties and neurological difficulties will as likely as not demonstrate her incompetence.
Swifter – the article below the one you linked to was interesting as well. Her campaign is double charging donors, but keeping the amount below $100, which is when the fraud department kicks in. On my mobile and can’t link, but it was reported to the MN AG, but has disappeared.
Hillary’s problem is one of likeability. If my baseball rolled into her yard, I would rather poison my dog than ask her for the courtesy of returning it – she’s THAT off-putting – and even libs know it.
Oh good my comment is awaiting moderation.
I need to correct something. I was wrong. I don’t agree with you, and neither does Factcheck.org. Please delete my original comment.
HERE is what Factcheck.org states.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
“Two Republican presidential candidates claim the so-called “birther” movement originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it.”
I was correct in my recollection that Hillary repudiated the birther rubbish.
But I was incorrect that she was repudiating something about which she had been wrong. She was castigating extreme supporters who wouldn’t accept her concession to Obama.
Why do conservatives persist in believing things that are so clearly false? It has become a foundation of conservatism in a way that was never true before in my lifetime.
And it was so easy for you to check, but you didn’t. Why is that?
Wow SMH, so Hillary is fleecing her rubes….that is some skeezy stuff, right there. Here’s your take-home quote:
“We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies”
No shit.
To stay clear of hypocrisy, I gotta say I really don’t feel bad for the fleeced rubes, lay down with pigs & etc., but still, how nasty can you get?
And you’re right, why isn’t this fraud being widely reported and investigated?
For those interested, check it out:
http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/
DG,
ALL your comments – every last one – will remain in moderation until you respond to the various responses to your comments in this thread.
I’ve asked nicely, and I’ll continue to, but until you stop treating this comment section as a place to poop and run and spout risible nonsense without any discussion, you’re going to get moderated.
Answer the responses. There is no other option.
Please see to this. Thanks..
Hello dear.
I’ll address your questions here and now.
No, I did not address your comments, but I did conform to your request. I frankly do not find merit in most of what your commenters have to say; rather I address you or whomever posts when I comment. At the time I was preparing for several days of dog shows, involving extensive prep; in addition I was acting as chief steward for a couple of specialties. My time is MY time. I spend it as I see fit. You write what you like on your blog, but it is not reasonable to require I read or respond to mostly rubbish comments. Rather I think you are afraid of the criticism.
You are correct, I did not get the movie reference. You are wrong about other things I stand by my criticism of you for agit prop. I have recently watched as you attacked (or promoted an attack) without substance against a black woman immigrant running for office and against a gay latino man. I see you and your readers routinely apply double standards that are at the very least hypocritical.
I observe you doing more of the same when you quote both Factcheck.org and Breitbart here. Breitbart is crap, and you should know it.
Breitbart makes reference to the WaPo, politico, and the guardian inaccurately. Further there is no evidence of the other claims made by Breitbart, memos etc being factually accurate or verifiable. Shame on you. Shame on Breitbart. Shame on the right for it being regarded as credible when it is not.
So you are instead promoting a right wing smear of a candidate, all without holding accountable the GOP nominee for egregious birtherism in his own right.
This is what Factcheck found, in 2008 and in their update in 2015:
“It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.”
— Robert Farley
There is zero credibility that Clinton or her campaign did what Breitbart claims and no independently viable evidence to support such a claim, LEAST of all that any of the sources they cite support Clinton or her campaign as a birther. There are no such memos from the campaign, and no video of Clinton challenging Obama’s religious beliefs.
What is conspicuously lacking at Factcheck is that Clinton rejected the birther claims of her few extreme followers, aka PUMA (political unity my ass), which were not representative of most of her followers and repudiated them, along with campaigning for and working for Obama.
WHY this is agit prop is that it makes your right wing nut conspiracy theory jerks believe they have some justification that does not exist in demonstrable or objective fact, so as not to feel bad about believing garbage.
I have fewer readers than you have, but I like the readers I have; quality over quantity. Pen and I have regular conversations about integrity – and the apparent lack of yours. He sees it as a larger character flaw; I see it as existing only where you are involved in far right obsession, with your ideology affecting you like some kind of cult thinking that causes you to avoid anything that contradicts your beliefs, rejecting facts. I see SitD and a few other right wing sites as sources for “what new lie is the right promoting now” for me to fact check, seeking multiple independent sources to confirm what is or is not accurate. But more than that, you remind me of what I do and do not want to be as a writer. That is working for me very well. It has facilitated networking with investigative and other reporters at the major and minor publications in Minnesota; when I call or otherwise contact, I get prompt responses. They know who I am, they know what kinds of things I write, and I am taken seriously. Ditto the congressional staffers at all of the MN congressional representatives offices, and a number of state offices as well. I’d rather be read at least occasionally over on MNPP by the London School of Economics crowd than by someone like Swiftee.
I really do still say a quick prayer for you and the kids every morning before I sit down to write, hoping you are all well, because family gives us all the greatest joy and the greatest sorrows too.
I still believe you are a fundamentally good and decent man, one who is capable of exceptional charm and creative genius. But I am sad to say that while I admire your ability as a writer, I don’t have much respect for many of the things you write, and far less for the sources you use for most of them.
UNLIKE you, I correct mistakes when I make them (and we ALL occasionally make them). Unlike you I am also more critical of the left than you give me credit for being, although much of that criticism is delivered privately rather than publicly. There are exceptions – I wrote a piece supporting Melanoma Trump not that long ago, noting there was no evidence that she was ever a sex worker, just a bi-sexual porn model, (while the GOP has an anti-porn plank in the 2016 platform). Also that Trump did not appear to have actually owned an Escort Service.
In contrast, where is the criticism of Trump you would be leveling at a ‘lefty’ for multiple accusations of sexual assault and harassment? The defense of ‘traditional marriage’ is a joke with a philandering serial adulterer as your candidate.
I see that larger hypocrisy combined with rampant factual error reflected in your blog, both posts and comments. I don’t like it, but so long as it gives me greater understanding of one side of the political spectrum or gives me ideas, I will keep looking at it. I’m actually mentioning you and SitD in my Friday post, while I finish up some writing from earlier this week that I’m not ready to publish yet.
Now back to using a thinning shears around a dog’s rear end, which is still preferable to reading most comments from Swiftee (hi! Swiftee). At least the dog will likely end the weekend with a grand championship; there is nothing but a waste of time reading Swiftee.
Also Trjmp
Trump made the media his bitch again this morning, they thought they were going to talk about birthed crap and it ended up being a free 30 minute commercial of military vets and even a gold star mom endorsing him. The guy is amazing
Washington Post today called the claim that Clinton started the Birther issue “widely debunked”
But Miller also repeated the widely debunked claim that Clinton and her campaign had questioned Obama’s birthplace in 2008, which is false.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-defiant-as-polls-rise-wont-say-obama-was-born-in-united-states/2016/09/15/48913162-7b61-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trump-745pm:homepage/story
BTW Powerline linked to this piece of cr*p story. Guess which one of them did that.
National Review has a piece on that if The Donald wins, Hillary will be the most hated Democrat in the country. The Queen is running against the least qualified Republican ever (going back to 1856)….and this is a point I agree with. And she may lose.
We saw what happened to Democrats after 2000. I wonder what they will do if Trump wins.
I believe that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August fourth, 1961.
But that guy in the White House is not Barack Hussein Obama II. He is Mohamad “Blondie” Malik, a boy born of one of Barack Obama Hussein’s mistresses in Kenya at nearly the same moment Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu. The infants were switched a few days later.
Why did they do this? Because the mother of Mohamad “Blondie” Malik offered Barrack Sr. four cows to do so.
How can I prove this?
Well, of course, most of the evidence was destroyed by Obama’s mother after the divorce. There is a set of travel documents from 1961 that prove my case, but they were damaged in the car fire that took Barack Senor’s life. Kind of odd that Barack Senior had so many car accidents when he was supposed to be a teetotaling Muslim, isn’t it?
You know a conspiracy is true when the deeper you dig, the more conspiracies you find.
You can’t make up anything more unbelievable than the truth about this guy.
A guy who was a lawyer who never lawyer-ed, a writer who only wrote biographies, and with that background became President of the US.
You can’t make it up.
Oh, he lawyered, all right. He mostly represented public-private housing authorities in disputes with tenants. Back in early 2008 the Chicago papers did some actual journalism and showed how Jarrett’s ‘business model’ worked: get the city and the feds to rehabilitate or build new substandard housing in Chicago, collect kickbacks from contractors (like Tony Rezko) hired to do the work, and when people complained about the shoddy condition of the housing, get Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (Obama’s employer) to evict the tenant or fight the lawsuit. ‘Civil rights attorney’ my ass.
Having apologized about the deplorables comment by saying that she regretted the word “half”. has anyone else realized that she really meant “all”, not less than half?
And yet no one talks about the Communist Party USA’s endorsement of Hillary (at one time on the payroll of Joe Stalin), or raises questions about Hillary’s obvious weight problem.
The biggest lie in the fact-checking industry is that Snopes is a neutral umpire.
The only neutral umpire is God – who Hillary claims is a partner in her Foundation.
Swiftee:
The Hillary people called and they want attribution for your new name and they want you to pay for the copyright infringement.
DG,
I said I’d show your comments if you responded – preferably in the original thread, but whatever – and so I will.
Most of the comment above is deflection and subject-changing, and frankly not worth the bother.
But:
UNLIKE you, I correct mistakes when I make them
Ma’am, bullshit on a hot day. That is why I am insisting you read the responses to your comments – because for the past five years, your comments have been fact-checked by other commenters (of which more below), and found wanting. Risibly wanting. Comically, embarassingly wanting. So, so so many examples; “academic studies” that were in fact undergraduate monographs; “debunkings” of my arguments that in fact supported my arguments; too many to recall.
It’s gotten to the point where if you say something is “fact”, I pretty much assume it’s not.
“Quality over quantity”.
I’ve read your blog a few times. You commenters were deeply unimpressive.
The commenters here? Among the regulars, an M.D., several lawyers, engineers, scientists – literally, a rocket scientist – accountants, an economist, a few teachers, a couple professional writers, senior managers in a couple of industries, even a judge once in a while. I don’t know who your commenters are – I doubt you do either – but they are not as smart as my commenters. I am not as smart as my commenters. You are not as smart as my commenters; you pretending to condescend to them rank gall.
And they have taken you to the woodshed so many times, it’s become a joke.
People who disagree are welcome here; Emery, Angryclown, Penigma and others are welcome, and appear un-moderated – because they don’t abuse my comment section.
Oh, yeah – one more thing.
DG,
In the thread about Kaepernick, you went on an elaborate tangent claiming that my “Morocco” reference was some sort of Islamophobia.
You were dog-whistling. You insulted me, because of your ignorance.
Roll that around your head a few times.
DG,
Your gaps in reading comprehension are becoming low comedy.
My cite refers to Democrat party operatives. Not Herself.
Which is standard dirty politics, btw; let the minions do the hatchet work, and merely point out you’re “American”. Which Hillary did.
She didn’t HAVE to say anything. She had people doing it for her.
Citing Factcheck is the gateway to life of appearing like a rube.
I’m currently playing phone tag
Yeah, I’ll just bet you are.
given the anti-porn public health plank in the GOP platform and the increase in porn, especially gay porn, during the GOP convention. Tsk tsk — the hypocrisy of the right
Huh?
What ARE you talking about?
Please explain that passage. I’m not sure you can.
DG,
I approved your impounded comments. .
But if you go back to your old habits, I’ll go back to enforcing my rules.
That is all.
“What ARE you talking about?”
I think this may have something to do with a story sourced to a web porno/hookup site local to Cleveland that said that gay porno had an uptick during the GOP convention.
-The data was not from a reliable source
-The data, even if essentially factual, was meaningless for fingering closeted hypocritical self-hating gay republicans because the influx of people to Philly during the convention DID NOT CONSIST PRIMARILY OF REPUBLICANS.
50,000: People traveling to the city for the convention, including about 15,000 credentialed journalists, 2,470 delegates and 2,302 alternate delegates (RNC).
. . .
11,310: Estimated number of demonstrators registered by organizers with permits to hold events during the convention.
“credentialed journolists” outnumbered GOP delegates and alternates by 3:1.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/numbers-cleveland-ramps-security-republican-convention-n611171
This is a simple, first pass attempt to determine how much validity should be assigned to some data set.
It is not just DG who can’t evaluate data properly, as far as I can tell liberals never, ever apply a skeptical eye to any data or claim that appears to support some bigoted position that they have taken. They like to tell themselves that they are the smart ones. They are not.
What’s wrong with criticizing those who are credulous enough to swallow Trump’s nonsense? Of course, you’ll get a lot of objections from those whose lack of sense is on display (including, as we see already, some in the comments here). Most people prefer not to admit that they are being played (successfully) for fools. Especially when it is obviously true.
DG keened:
“I really do still say a quick prayer for you and the kids every morning before I sit down to write, hoping you are all well, because family gives us all the greatest joy and the greatest sorrows too.
this is such classic stalker cant.
She’s planning to boil the bunny one of these days.
DG chirruped:
“I have fewer readers than you have, but I like the readers I have; quality over quantity. “
boy I’ll say!
for the past year DG’s site has averaged 28.13 hits PER DAY for the whole site!
when you discount the comments left by peeve and DG to themselves the number of actual commenters for the whole year is less than 10.
getting her “guerrilla posts” up over here gives her a hundredfold increase in viewership so of course she feels “entitled” to do as she pleases re interacting with other commenters. Just getting her bilge in front of an audience this big is her goal.
DG, factcheck.org (a thoroughly DISCREDITED source) got it wrong again! Barak Obama in his “literary bio” claimed for nearly 20 years that he was born in Kenya.
So in point of fact, which you would have easily discovered had you anywhere near the chops you advertise, it was Mr Obama who “started” the whole “birther” thing with what can only be characterized as one of his many bald-faced lies!
Once again, Emery, you have only shown that Hillary and her fans are no better than Trump and his fans.
Just change “Trump” in your 6:53 to “Hillary”, and you will see what I mean.
Did you know that Hillary had a private foreign intelligence network while she was at state? One loyal to her and paid with Clinton Global Initiative funds? And run by Sydney Blumenthal and a possibly compromised retired CIA agent? And that she pitched classified material to Blumenthal, who had no security clearance?
Google ‘Blumenthal email hack.’ The idea that Hillary is the less dangerous choice to manage US national security is a joke.
DG wrote: “At the time I was preparing for several days of dog shows….”
I’m thinking she actually meant to say dog and pony show!
Triumph inhabits a world of nothing really matters nihilism and I suspect his followers do as well. If Trump were a better man he would have apologized for having lied to the American public for the last five years. But Trump is not that better man.
The real problem that I don’t know how we get around is that with so many sources of information out there, a person today can choose to only hear from those who already agrees with him or her, i.e. the echo chamber problem. Even those who are capable of thinking critically must choose to do so.
There is no one living in the US that has not heard Trump described in the vilest terms, often accurately.
On the other hand, if all you listen to is NPR, you will not hear Hillary described as anything but competent, with perhaps a shade too much attachment to privacy.
I have never yet heard a person who prefers Hillary over Trump explain why Hillary is a better choice. No one seems to be able to say “Trump is bad because he is X, and Hillary is not X” w/o citing policy (which is a value judgment) or personality (which is also a value judgement).
I’ve heard people call Hillary the most qualified person ever to seek the office – which is both kind of comical, historically, and requires the suspension of an awful lot of rational thought.
There are numerous things to be said about both Candidates. Although I’m starting to wonder if Trump understands the electorate better than Clinton does.
Case in point: Hillary fan columnist Froma Harrop:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/13/clinton_will_be_fine_trump_never_131760.html
Most of the column is spent criticizing Trump — on the grounds that under a Trump administration, US foreign policy would be for sale, used by Trump as a tool to make Trump wealthier. Yes, really. Harrop is really afraid that something like that might happen in some dystopian version of the
pastfuture.Hillary’s health is mentioned. No mention of Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.
Perhaps that’s fair. Secretaries of State come in various flavors. there are those who set administration policy, and there are those who are expected to execute foreign policies set by the president. Hillary was the second type, this is why she has such a spare record of achievement as SoS. The only US foreign policy achievement that has her fingerprints on it is the overthrow of Moamar Ghaddafi. That achievement is universally viewed as having mixed results (to say the least). BTW, when is the last time you have you heard Hillary asked to comment on this achievement of hers?
Here is what she had to say at the time: https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y
under a Trump administration, US foreign policy would be for sale, used by Trump as a tool to make Trump wealthier.
There is just about the most clear-cut case of Mitch Berg’s Law #7 that I have ever seen. How did a bumbling Arkansas governor and his wife accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars when neither have worked for the private sector since the early 70s?
Secretary of State’s “global foundation” received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign countries.
Good god, the hypocrisy.
Mad Dog admits her mistakes in evidence? By rarely making a second comment in a given thread? Exactly how is this possible?
The more I see of Dog Gone, the more I have to wonder if Generose might be a good fit for her. The stuff she says just boggles the mind.