Hillary had her meltdown in 2016 over Matt Lauer and then she said:
“If that F-ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses.
Lauer’s finished….and if I loose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.”
Hillary had her meltdown in 2016 over Matt Lauer and then she said:
“If that F-ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses.
Lauer’s finished….and if I loose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.”
In probably a desperate act of relevancy, the Senate Intelligence committee announced Wednesday it would hold a press conference on the Russian inquiry into the 2016 election.
‘No evidence, but we’re still looking, looking, looking. We’ve got lots of doors — ones not closed or locked by Special counsel anyway — and we continue to search.’ But they cannot give up the ghost of the 2016 election witch hunt. ‘But we’re “expanding” it’.
There was no new information and virtually no answers. Why they even had to hold it, I don’t know? On the day and time Trump went to Las Vegas to visit victims, they had to hold a press conference. I once had a little respect for Sen Burr, but that is long gone. What a putz he turned out to be.
So they made news for not making any news, except to verify that they allow the Mueller witch hunt investigation to hold our government hostage. I’d like to know where in the Constitution that a special counsel is to control Congress?
The only big question answered was whether they would release questionable Russia Facebook ads? The answer was: “we don’t release documents provided to our committee.” They could have just issued a statement. Maybe they could remind leftville media that the electorate determines election results, not ads. Media doesn’t know.
All I know is that this is not the government we elected. We’d like that government returned to us ASAP.
They should have called this as a Swamp Update or an “Update from the Swamp.”
by Andrew C. McCarthy September 23, 2017 | National Review
His pre-dawn raid was meant to intimidate Manafort, not just to collect evidence. Robert Mueller’s sprawling special-counsel investigation is playing hardball. It was not enough to get a search warrant to ransack the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, even as the former Trump campaign chairman was cooperating with congressional investigators. Mueller’s bad-asses persuaded a judge to give them permission to pick the door lock. That way, they could break into the premises in the wee hours, while Manafort and his wife were in bed sleeping. They proceeded to secure the premises — of a man they are reportedly investigating for tax and financial crimes, not gang murders and Mafia hits — by drawing their guns on the stunned couple, apparently to check their pajamas for weapons.
Mueller’s probe more resembles an empire, with 17 prosecutors retained on the public dime. So . . . what exactly is the crime of the century that requires five times the number of lawyers the Justice Department customarily assigns to crimes of the century? No one can say. The growing firm is clearly scorching the earth, scrutinizing over a decade of Manafort’s shady business dealings, determined to pluck out some white-collar felony or another that they can use to squeeze him. You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump’s Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.
The way it’s supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor — make that: 17 hyper-aggressive prosecutors — and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find. …/
So it is an investigation in search of a crime. More, it is an investigation seeking to justify itself — job #1. See justification of itself and its conduct is the central mission. The rest is collateral. And to do that by or using any means necessary. Whatever it takes.
Interestingly enough, someone else has also described Mueller’s operation as building another DOJ. That gives me pause, it sure seems that way. Just what we need, another department of justice, or injustice as the case may be.
Now if it were up to me to try to explain this investigation(no one is better than McCarthy), this would only be my starting point. The how and why is another matter.
In the meantime, just imagine if they tried this on Clinton. Oops, no they never would even think of it. But there would be no major Special Counsel “investigation” anyway.
Last week, I heard Hillary say that big Russia influence operation turned women against her. This weekend she told us that men cost her votes with women.
I figure that now proves Putin and Moscow and men had greater influence with women than she did. It seems Hillary doesn’t speak for women as much as she thought she did.
That piece is from Glamour magazine:
“Sheryl [Sandberg] ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure—and I’m talking principally about white women—they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl,'” she said. “And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me; as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.” [read]
That is Hillary using what Sandberg told her as validation for why women voted against her the way they did. Hillary must have missed all those nasty, vile attacks against women who supported Trump. Attacks on Trump were justified. What a one way Diva in Denial.
See in Hillary’s world, women may get to vote themselves but Hillary gets to explain why they voted the way they did. If it were Trump or anyone else, there would be demands for proof. Not for Hillary, her blanket assertions are more than enough evidence.
Note to Hillary
So Hillary, here’s an exercise for you. Sit down with a glass of your imported wine and contemplate out of all those votes you lost by… how many of those votes did you lose because of Trump? I’m pretty sure it was the overwhelming number. In reality, he cost you the election. You lost votes to Trump. I think you need to let that sink in.
Come to think of it: Putin, Trump, and now men cost you votes with women. What’s that say about your influence with women? Then why don’t you just blame those women, too, for costing you the election? Go ahead. You already blamed the people that had influence over them. Don’t let women get away with it. Hold their feet to the fire, Hillary.
Of course after her servergate, deleted emails and Benghazi, anyone who buys Hillary’s explanation on anything should have their head examined.
Or maybe you just had one of those delayed “bimbo eruptions” of your own, Hillary.
Daily Wire [excerpt]
The one consolation Hillary Clinton continues to cling to after her stunning upset at the hands of Donald Trump in November is the fact that she won the popular vote, by about 2 percent (48 – 46), which though ultimately meaningless in the electoral college system, Democrats have attempted to hold up as “proof” that Trump is “not their president.” But buried within a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is the delicious little nugget that if a rematch were to be held today, Clinton would apparently be stripped of even that moral victory.
The new WashPost/ABC News poll found that while 46 percent of those surveyed said they voted for Clinton and 43 percent said they voted for Trump, asked how they would vote if given a second chance, respondents ended up giving Trump the popular vote win in the hypothetical rematch, 43 – 40.
So instead of wondering why Trump’s support has not weakened, the winner of the election, why don’t they ask where Hillary’s support has gone? It’s melting, at the time she clearly is plotting a rematch for 2020. Where have all the Clinton flowers gone?
Meanwhile, Obama told ABC News that he blamed “the bubble,” or the job itself, for the reason he underestimated Trump and his popularity.
“[T]he bubble is the bubble,” he told Stephanopoulos. “And, I think we’ve done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you can’t help but lose some feel for what’s on the ground because you’re not on the ground.”
The problem was not the job, but the person in that job.
No, Obama, its not losing touch with the American people if you never were in touch with the people to begin with. Yet at the same time, he was clearly delusional in his support for Hillary. He used his job “in the bubble” as the predicate to elect Hillary Clinton — who seems to have her own “bubble” of disconnect.
Of course, Obama has yet to admit that in effect he lost to Trump, because Obama was so invested in his legacy and Hillary’s win. Instead, “the bubble did it”.
But the media all carps about Trump’s low numbers? Yet the Dems have still not realized elections do have consequences.
Get ready for a short trip in the way-back machine to 2008.
Obama’s campaign had a series of communications with both Iran and Syria.
Malkah Fleisher, 02/02/09 | Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama employed representatives to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president.
United States President Barack Obama employed representatives and experts to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president, organizers of the meetings told Agence France Presse on Monday.
Over the past few months, Obama campaign and election officials, as well as nuclear non-proliferation experts, had several “very, very high-level” contacts with Iranian leaders, according to Jeffrey Boutwell, executive director for the U.S. branch of the Pugwash group, a Nobel Prize-winning international organization of scientists. Former defense secretary William Perry, who served in Obama’s election campaign, also participated in some of the meetings, which included discussions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. …/
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed the reports Monday that Obama officials had repeated contact with his country for some time prior to the U.S. elections. “Dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration,” Assad said. ../ Read more
So guess who was talking to Iran months before taking office? I don’t even want to get on the Iranian Valerie Jarrett off-ramp. No SNL skits, only a “thrill up the leg” to media.
Hearings, investigations, wire taps, outrage, Independent Counsel…. don’t be silly.
While we are in the way back machine, let us go a few decades back to 1983. Good ol’ lion of the Senate, Mary Jo Kopechne killer, Ted Kennedy made his grand invitation to the Soviet’s Communist Party, and Yuri Andropov, to come intervene in our election. A quid pro quo. Senator Kennedy was trying to challenge Reagan and needed an edge.
The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.
So he promised Soviets wide access to the American media to make their case. But how would he assure Soviets of such unprecedented access? Well, Ted won’t be talking, nor anyone else either. Maybe we could ask his media friends? Investigations? FBI probe? Logan Act? Surely you jest.
CNN runs a special called “The End” as Fox starts a daily show called “first 100 days.” Does anything highlight the contrast more than that? The beginning and the end.
On one hand Liberals are in mourning. They look back at radical nostalgia ending while the rest of us, thinking people, are in mourning for what Obama has done to this country.
Conservatives, Republicans, and normal people look forward to Trump coming in to fix some of the many problems — created or magnified by Obama, called accomplishments.
This brings up another thought nicely illustrated by that photo of Obama visiting the Henry Ford Museum, sitting on the bus Rosa Parks rode on. (look it up here )
The picture shows Obama sitting alone on an empty bus from a bygone era, which was famous for what took place on it. Namely Rosa Parks making her stand for civil rights and changing or challenging culture. That was the picture. But it is also a powerful metaphor for Obama and his legacy. Let’s see how much mileage I can get out of it? None of this applies to Rosa Parks but to Obama, who is caught in the nostalgia of it all.
In the end, Obama seems to be alone, surrounded by his failed legacy, staring out a window seemingly oblivious to what all took place. He wanted a coveted spot in the public and he got it. He started off wanting to “fundamentally change” America and our perception of it, only to himself become the chief symbol for what is rotten in Washington. In effect, there was a backfire, like those old buses were prone to do.
Then the big one. Obama’s finale of two terms and his legacy gets derailed and replaced by the newer Trump Train — a popular uprising of disgust from the people. They have had enough, finally, and sent a messenger to demonstrate their conviction. They beat back the status quo rules and establishment to get there. A David vs. Goliath story.
Obama argued that this movement, or man now leading it, was unqualified and ill-suited for the job, and not to be trusted. Trump deserved no seat and his movement was to be blacklisted by putting every label on it the left could, including racist. That further fueled resentment and resistance to the self-serving establishment — government run amuck.
After it all, there sits Obama alone on an empty bus staring outward. Alone on his own bus. He will now have to single-handedly defend his legacy, with help from his allies. But he is the only one who could make the case for his radical legacy. All the others will be just cheerleaders. He now leads his parade of one to secure and protect his legacy.
A moment of history illustrated, metaphorically, by a simple photo of Obama sitting on Rosa Parks’ bus in a dated backdrop. Obama rode on the past racial history to propel himself. He extorted every circumstance to usher in his radicalism as America’s cure, rather than the disease. How’s that for milking a metaphor? (more could be said)
RightRing | Bullright
The week of hypocrisy and double standards, and here we go.
The hearings were one thing, emphasis on race and Russia – not necessarily in that order — but dialogue and media are another which got progressively worse, right on script.
We finished the week by having the self-anointed civil rights leader, John Lewis call Trump’s election and his presidency illegitimate. Anyone NOT see that coming? These people certainly are predictable, if nothing else.
“I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis told NBC News Friday. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” – NBC
No, unfortunately, Lewis was not a lone voice. Predictable. He did it intentionally on Friday before MLK Day — which I guess is now ensconced as the day of hate.
Now you would think that Lewis making this statement would be like a bomb going off, and the shock of it from a sitting senior Congressman would outrage people. You would think immediately people would distance themselves from his remarks, en masse. The condemnation would be fierce. And you would think a media outcry would demand every single Democrat condemn his remarks or be condemned. Nope.
Actually, Michelle Obama kicked it off on Oprah saying “we’re feeling what not having hope feels like.” She was praised for saying we have no hope. They cheered her on.
One Democrat pundit said on Sunday, “this is the resistance; this is just what it looks like now.” Ah, “what it looks like now” is short for this is the way it’s going to be. No, it’s actually going to be worse. They know it and so do we. And then their shadow Obama government will be adding to the resistance.
What you would think should be a normal response, in their racist political correctness, now is reversed. Rather than blanket condemnation, the praises for John Lewis came from everywhere: media, Congress, the black community, the public. Hard to find anyone who does condemn his statements.
Remember Joe Wilson, the SOTUS “heckler”? He had the audacity to make a public disagreement with Obama. He got a good talking to from the Republican leadership. And Mitch McConnell, all he said was that job #1 was to make Obama a one-term president. Democrats turned that into a giant insult and classic racism. Justice Alito shook his head. People were called racists for asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate or records — since he really had no trail. Just questioning Obama was blatant racism.
So it was way more than Obama ever received, even before Trump takes office. Now resistance is celebrated. Calls for obstruction ring from every corner of the Left. Respect is out, Resistance is in.(lockstep of course) In fact, the Left even says, proudly, it is following the model that worked so well for Republicans. (choke, gag) Get that, they even blame us for their radical resistance. They blame Russia for the election results. And they blame Trump for the condition of America which preceded any thought of his to run. Now they are trying to even make us own Obamacare.
Well, the total fallout of John Lewis is wide agreement with him. In fact, 23 members of Congress are boycotting the inauguration. It’s the cool thing now to join the resistance. They will institutionalize it, celebrate it, take it into schools and claim it as righteous.
All this deception won’t work. The people have been awakened and are not going to take their eyes off this, We survived their decade of decadence and aren’t happy. Sorry, Dems, don’t even try to out anger us. It ain’t happening. The blame projection won’t work. But they have the towers of media carrying their water, and soon will have every one of their shadow operatives opposing Trump. Exactly the way they did in the general election. Almost as if the election never happened because, to them, it didn’t.
Protests are highly overrated. Respectful protests were fashionable toward Obama, disrespectful protests toward Trump are now in. When Tea Party protests were born, the IRS and media assailed “speaking truth to power” using their big-gov firehouses, under a black president. It was Democrats in the sixties who opposed Lewis and their ‘civil rights’ agenda. Now they blame Republicans but no one is supposed to know the truth.
Now their resistance stuff is all the rage. Resisting what? – doesn’t matter. On the IRS Tea Party scandal, blacks and Democrats stood on the side of big government fire hoses. They stood up and walked out. Eric Holder was in contempt and they stood up for him, who was standing up for Obama. But now they see illegitimacy as the cause de jure.
So the answer, my friend, ain’t blowing in the wind. No, their answer to nothing is to boycott Trump and whatever he does. Take that Mitch McConnell. He let them beat him up for eight years for a benign statement. Then people bent over backwards for Obama. Republicans stood there like deer in the headlights, as radicals ruled the White House and administration. That really worked?
The boycott of Trump takes full shape before the parade or swearing in. What will they do when he’s in office? I think we know. (whatever was not done to Obama) Can’t you smell what the boycott is cooking? It means de facto protesting America and what it stands for, the rule of law. So civil rights or justice are excuses, the real boycott is against America.
And happy MLK Day, for what that’s worth.
RightRing | Bullright
Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.
Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.
Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air
Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:
Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.
Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.
More stupidity from Bill and Hillary
On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.
She could not prevail against them.
“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]
“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”
Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.
Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.
Hillary told her donors:
“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”
That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .
Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?
What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”
Any cursory review of the election would leave many unanswered questions about those who absorbed the spotlight as the many, the proud… the anti-Trumpers.
What happened to them and where are they now? Well, I just saw that the prominent Never-Trump leader Bill Kristol will be stepping back, or down, in his career. Now Stephen Hayes is stepping up to be editor-in-chief of the failing Weekly Standard. Hayes is another anti-Trumper. They are calling the shakeup lots of things, but Kristol is out.
Hayes will certainly continue in the legacy of denial, after Kristol, while the Weekly Standard seeks to rebuild its once-lucrative brand. Put some lipstick on that pig.
Bill Kristol is stepping down as editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, more than two decades after he co-founded the conservative publication.
“It’s good,” Kristol told CNN on Monday. “Here at The Weekly Standard, we’ve always been for regime change.”
Steve Hayes, the publication’s senior editor, will take over for Kristol.
But Kristol won’t be leaving the stage, just stepping away from Weekly Standard. We know he can’t leave the limelight. His condescending elitism won’t allow it.
Mitt Romney, what’s left to say about him? He was in the running for Secretary of State, then the unthinkable loss of not getting picked. After all he did to oppose Trump every public way he could, he tried to shift his hatred in a few tweets.
First, were all the attack(s)… plenty of them:
What he “knows?”
There was the one after election:
Then there was the one after failing to get the nomination he wanted:
But no apology or thanks to Trump for considering him — with all his many warts.
Then there is this reversal from staunch anti-Trumper, Erick Erickson. His radio show must be in a nose dive lately. But never fear, he now says we should give Trump a chance. A little late, don’t you think you waited long enough?
During the 2016 election, I was adamantly opposed to Donald Trump. Much of the media cited a piece I wrote in mid-February planting my flag against Trump as one of the major pieces to spark the #NeverTrump movement.
I wrote in that piece that if the GOP went with Trump that the party was not only going to lose the White House, but see devastation down ballot. All the polling showed it. The polling had been right during the primaries. Trump was the one guy consistently ahead in the polls and the one guy who consistently could not beat Hillary. The general election polling showed the same.
I, and the polling, were completely wrong. So were a lot of other people. After the election I wrote that those of us who were so completely wrong about the election should exercise some humility. If we got that much wrong, the odds are we got a lot of other stuff wrong, too. Consequently, I thought the day after the election and still think that we owe Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt.
This does not mean I am now on the Trump team. I still have concerns about Trump.
How generous of Erick to give Trump “the benefit of the doubt” now…..when all other opposition has failed. He tries to blame his rabid, anti-Trump stance on earlier polls.
Count Erick as “not selling out”….
he’s selling up, to anyone who still believes anything he says.
Then there are the Obamas, those priceless gems of slobbering elitism. Michelle says she may be leaving the White House but not the public stage. Surprise! Right after she tells us we have no hope. Barack Obama plans to go nowhere. He told us that.
In fact, they rented a mansion down the street from the White House where he will continue his radical activism by running a shadow government, according to insider reports. I’m sure any Obama residence will have plenty of room for his Iranian adviser, Valerie Jarrett. I give Obama the award to represent the anti-Trump opposition.
You don’t believe Hillary Clinton is going anywhere either, do you? She’ll have her own oppositional organization. And when stars align, some spectacular things will happen.
Does this mean that Erickson along with Hayes, Kristol, Obama, Hillary and all those outspoken others will be on the same page at some point opposing Trump? Look for that; but how they parse their active roles in the coalition will stand reason on its head.
It would seem all the anti-Trumpers are not really going away, just lining up to posture themselves in public and media. But their opposition doesn’t change. They are just finding more creative ways to channel it.
I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.
The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.
Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)
So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.
Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.
Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.
Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.
They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)
This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.
All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.
“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact
Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.
They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.
Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?
The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.
But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.
If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!
First NYT reported:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”
The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.
In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”
But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.
“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.
They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?
Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:
“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”
Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:
“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”
“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”
So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?
First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.
But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.
Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)
Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.
RightRing | Bullright
Watching a commercial the other day, I noticed the Verizon map and thought that must be the only map that looks redder than the election map.
Interesting comparison: Congressional districts top and Verizon on bottom.
Can you hear us now?
Finally, I think it’s time for a personal message to Democrats. It’s time you carry you whiny, crying, petulant carcasses off the streets and soak in a little reality. Baste yourselves in liquid spirits if you must, but go knowing it’s over. You get no trophy.
That’s right, “Tuesday’s Gone With The Wind.” — Get over it.
Remember this Libs, you hypocrites?
Take your crying towels and “Move On”. Get a grip for Heaven’s sake. Your utopian hallucination has ended. Reality crashed the party. Trump is not leaving, deal with it.
That is not to say the idiocy of elections. We’ve seen the idiots exposed and it is not pretty. Should we be surprised since the media has managed to create multiple irrelevant narratives while ignoring the major issues?
And the one big issue was the determination of the people — all of us pissed off misfit deplorables — that wanted change, to right the good ship America. They missed it.
I had an analogy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the DNC, to the Titanic. (I even saw someone else make it) They had built this monstrosity of her campaign that would just cruise through anything with all the glitter, pride and arrogance they could stuff into it. Then she thought she would just ride through the tides and she’d run out the clock.
She had the arrival party planned and the music was playing through the trip. No storms on their radar, just minor obstycles — like her corruption — to be ignored. They posed no threat because the people didn’t care about such things. “Boo, turn up the music.”
Now in the aftermath, the media and pontificators are telling us what the results mean. Well, if they didn’t know what the election was about then how can they be trusted to interpret the results? The point being the mood and will of the people. But that was deemed irrelevant even from the beginning. All that mattered to them was seeing Hillary get elected and continuing a third term of Obama. They ignored that 70% of the people who believed we’re on the wrong track. Hope and change is now hope it changes.
The election is over but the campaign continues. MSM and the Left campaigns as if the election didn’t happen, to define both the election and Trump’s plans at the same time. The goal of the left is to define all things to fit their agenda.
At the risk of quoting myself before the election here:
Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.
The Hillary campaign and Leftist media also underestimated evangelicals. By 81% they came out for Trump. But that is the way the Left is: the half of America that supported Trump is irrelevant, just like fly over country they despise. We were never a factor because they don’t care – still don’t.
Their campaign to define everything on the right, including us, continues. So the fight goes on. To allow them to do that is to cede the results. When they define our objective, we lose.
RightRing | Bullright
I look forward to and enjoy the debates as much as anyone. They are informative and have a place. But they are only one part in the whole process. Like everything else, we see how biased or corrupted they can be. Politicized, for sure, but have they outlived their status?
I mean what else would we expect? It is their system, the establishment likes its control and uses it every way they can. So debates are one of their tentacles. They own it.
However, in case the elite inside, power-control estabos — who know better than the people — have not noticed, the people have been having a debate from the beginning. That’s the real debate, a referendum on them. Estabos do not like that one at all.
So if they haven’t noticed by now, we have come to a few conclusions too. The status quo has got to go. The ruling class told us we are irrelevant and what we want doesn’t matter. They tell us what issues are important. And they tell us how we should vote. That’s the way it is done, they say. Our vote must be based on
others’ their choice and endorsements.
While we had this kick down dragged out debate this far, they’ve opposed the will of the people every step. They didn’t notice we won every round. People are fed up. We get faux hearings about phony responsibility with no accountability. Nothing short of that is on their menu now. The establishment is insulted that we dare resist their status quo bargain.
These days they complain about “structural racism” inherent in all places, yet they have a structural bias in the whole election process — from establishment to media — just as they have in government. That structuralism doesn’t bother them one bit, they thrive on it.
Now this elite status-quo is using the race card in every way to keep their establishment in control of the process to control the results. Then the debate injects the label of racist even into the debate. They play the gender card in the same way. Put that together with the smear tactics and you have a structural establishment cocktail to destroy any opposition to it. That’s their plan. Some value debates mey have, but they change nothing.
Under that light, what do even the debates really mean? Use the debates to screw us? What’s new? It’s better not to bestow any more value on them than they deserve — consider the source.
RightRing | Bullright
A new organization wants to call the progress of elections, the winning or losing in chosen areas, in real time as it happens.
Depending on your preference for more information, you may disagree or agree with what they are doing. I don’t happen to like it. Much of it is based on modeling etc.
New York Times: Real-Time Election Day Projections – By Nick Corasaniti
PALO ALTO, Calif. — Now, a group of data scientists, journalists and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs is seeking to upend that reporting tradition, providing detailed projections of who is winning at any given time on Election Day in key swing states, and updating the information in real time from dawn to dusk.
The plan is likely to cause a stir among those involved in reporting election results and in political circles, who worry about both accuracy and an adverse effect on how people vote. [More]
The spokesman has been promoting their system as an announcer of a ball game. That sounds quaint, doesn’t it?
The problem I have is he wants us to think of it as just calling the “play by play” without accepting any responsibility for its influence on results.
He claimed it is still up to press or media to call the final result. Yes, but in a way that is what he is doing all along. People can then be influenced or react based on their coverage. And we already see enough media involvement with the elections.
Former CIA Dir Mike Morell put out a scathing op-ed declaring Trump is turned an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
That happens at the same time Media and Dems (as if there were a difference) are hell bent in collaboration to demonize Trump. The intentional lying and muddying campaign continue from Hillary. That is Hillary muddying her own record and actions because she cannot explain her record of lies. Then there’s her smear campaign on Trump by any means possible, Morell being the latest attempt.
Yet it continues against Trump. Its a scary thing when the DNC media, and all the establishment and their lackeys team up on one person. Had to know it was coming but to this level I’ve never seen before. There’s a genuine, massive conspiracy for you.
Morell could have just endorsed Hillary, but he wanted to harpoon him. That’s what he should have done. But he had to try to turn him into a Russian agent.
“On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure she is elected as our 45th president,” Morell wrote.
Isn’t that wonderful? Obviously he already is doing everything he can do, including label Trump a Russian agent. Actually, it only makes me wonder more about Hillary and Morell.
But there must be something really wrong with his eyesight.
“Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”
“My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the CIA. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.”
Okay, add to that the recent statements from Obama in his official press conference. He labels Trump unfit and a risk to national security or to be trusted. What hogwash. Obama has been the greatest threat America has had. He’s done more damage than anyone too.
Now here is the problem, if there was anything in question about Trump, he shouldn’t have been putting it out that way. I doubt op-eds are the prescribed method or procedure.
It does open the can of worms though. Obama was caught on a national stage being a dupe to Putin’s henchman telling him that he would have more flexibility after his election. Where was Morell on that? Where was Morell over the past eight years as Obama compromised our security? Oh, sorry, he helped push the phony video narrative on Benghazi, which the rest of us call Lying. What about Muslim Brotherhood ties?
Now he is warning us about a threat when we’ve been living with this growing threat from within for eight years. But you can always count on Leftists to stand truth on its head. Its a natural thing to progressives.
Remember it was Obama who laughed and mocked the Russian threat. He also minimized the threat of Iran too.
“And the 1980’s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back — because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.”
But it is Obama’s failed leadership and foreign policy from Clinton through, that caused the current crisis. He more less put his stamp of approval on ISIS. He set the stage for Libya’s failed state. He encouraged mass illegal invasion on our border. Now he is engaged in bringing Syrian (and who knows from where) refugees into our country and spreading them across the states. Then sanctuary cities. Trump complains and is called an agent?
The leaked DNC memos caused a reaction from Dems. Then Trump made a simple comment about her missing emails. See how quick they jumped on Trump saying he was inviting Russia to hack? (like they need our invitation) Then they said Russia was trying to influence our elections. But when they start to put stories in media about Trump being an unwitting agent, it is they who are trying to influence the election with scare tactics, undermining our election with Russia’s help. That a former CIA director is doing it is way beyond the pale. But then there are no limits.
I used to just see the hypocrisy on a massive scale. Yes but I didn’t realize how intentional it was. It’s not that the Left doesn’t care about being hypocritical, and they don’t. It is that they have so many reasons they need to be hypocritical for their agenda. It’s part of the job. To that end, Mike Morell gladly cooperates in this charade illusion.
Of course the ones we have to watch out for are Hillary and Obama commies, with all the related DC allies, cohorts and operatives. But they don’t want us looking at them. And media doesn’t want to talk about that.
RightRing | Bullright
That’s right its Trump and Pence, no translation needed. I believe this is the logo.
On the other side, Yawn if You’re with Hillary, has all the appeal of a rotten egg.
Now Tim Kaine appears to be auditioning for Hillary’s estrogen ticket. Clinton Kaine.
Sherrod Brown, who Biden likes as a choice, seems to be sliding off the radar. But because his name starts with “She” maybe he will make a resurgence. Though Hillary just cannot have anyone who threatens to upstage her. She’s counting on the vagina vote.
If you aren’t on the Trump Pence side, I guess you aren’t in the game.