Recommended Posts

Hillary on Libya

 

This was in 2011, of course.

 

Sorry I have to use this version of the video. The one from CBS has embedding disabled.

 

 

Glad to see Libya doing so well now.

 

How about changing the perspective a bit, even if it spoils Hillary's hilarity and good vibes?

 

Original Hillary statement about Gaddafi:  We came, we saw, he died. (yuk yuk yuk...)

 

Gaddafi's home town falls to Islamic State in anarchic Libya

 

Revised statement: We came, we saw, we bullied, they die. (tears...)

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary on Libya

I'd like to see Hillary IN Libya.

Greg

Nah, two rapes don't make a NY Times article...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy her while you can. You won't enjoy her as President.

--Brant

Not so sure she will be nominated.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy her while you can. You won't enjoy her as President.

--Brant

Not so sure she will be nominated.

A...

There are six to eight different Republicans who would crush anyone else I can imagine.

The Dems had better get back to conjuring up more than Bernie Sanders.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy her while you can. You won't enjoy her as President.

--Brant

Not so sure she will be nominated.

Are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy her while you can. You won't enjoy her as President.

--Brant

Not so sure she will be nominated.

Are you serious?

Is that a serious question William?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam may be assuming an American moral probity which simply no longer exists within the Democratic party if not the electorate generally. Then he's wrong.

Adam may be assuming she really doesn't want the job to the extent her campaign runs out of gas. If so, then he's possibly wrong.

Adam may be assuming a lot of things, but you can always assume he's serious unless his posts come with cute little animated graphics--maybe.

--Brant

seriously, you Canadians know much more about American politics than Americans know about Canadian--and for good reasons--but it's not your native culture (The United States is a hugely moralistic country and people but it's directed outwards to other countries not to its own politics policy wise except for lip service but against individual citizens [war on drugs] so it's always ready to go to war and fight for the right [the right to fight if nothing else] which is why Rand Paul has no presidential chance as the head of a ticket, but Hillary has more than a chance)

a big war is coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure she [Hillary Clinton] will be nominated.

Are you serious?

Is that a serious question William?

It is a serious question, but it may be better put:

"You have some doubt the Democrats will crown Clinton in Philadelphia next July. You imply that her coronation is uncertain. Can you sketch the reasoning that lead you to doubt -- are there indications the rest of us have missed? What is the main element of your uncertainty?"

Those are better questions, maybe. I think your one-liner invited curiosity, Adam. If Hillary ultimately fails to gain the nomination, there is surely a scenario in your mind that would explain such an eventuality.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure she [Hillary Clinton] will be nominated.

Are you serious?

Is that a serious question William?

It is a serious question, but it may be better put:

....

Those are better questions, maybe. I think your one-liner invited curiosity, Adam. If Hillary ultimately fails to gain the nomination, there is surely a scenario in your mind that would explain such an eventuality.

First, William, I think you saw my early post(s) on another thread on what Evita's handlers only successful nomination strategy would be...

1) Most critical - Keep Evita isolated from the public and the media;

2) Massive money conduits and and technology; and

3) chaos on the election days...

See this article in McClatchy from yesterday:

Welcome to Hillary Clinton 2.0. Mindful of her defeat by Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton has embraced a new strategy – one that so far does not include town-hall meetings and campaign rallies, media interviews, even public events.

That prediction must have been just pure luck right William?

Instead, she holds small controlled events with a handful of potential voters in homes, businesses and schools. She repeats many of the same lines (“I want to be your champion” is a favorite), participants are handpicked by her staff or the event host, and topics are dictated by her campaign.

I think I may have used those exact phrases.

What you may not understand is that I know both ends of the Clinton's cloacas - Arkansas and New York.

I spent most of my adult life in the Democratic NY State and national politics.

The article I referenced above is another canary in the coal mine. She is becoming more vulnerable because of a number of political dynamics that have changed the American electoral process.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/21/267463/clinton-campaigning-in-a-bubble.html

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam may be assuming an American moral probity which simply no longer exists within the Democratic party if not the electorate generally. Then he's wrong.

Adam is thinking that Hillary may not win the nomination. He must have in mind a few reasons why that could be so. He will probably share the rationale. American Moral Probity is a hard-to-measure concept, but it is a cognitive breeze to assign the Democratic party to the devil. Or the entire voting public. Easy.

Adam may be assuming she really doesn't want the job to the extent her campaign runs out of gas. If so, then he's possibly wrong.

I wish she hadn't run. I wish she won't take the ballot. But reality has given indications that my wishes are irrelevant. Adam seems to be aware of contraindications. Discuss.

Adam may be assuming a lot of things, but you can always assume he's serious unless his posts come with cute little animated graphics--maybe.

Thank you. As you are captain of OL's senior posting team, I defer to your assessment.

seriously, you Canadians know much more about American politics than Americans know about Canadian--and for good reasons--but it's not your native culture

I don't understand this. Knowledge of American politics (and political history) isn't at some exact level. Most Canadians probably are as ignorant as the average American about politics, but that obscures actual knowledge by averaging. I am neither average nor ignorant.

As for 'not your native culture,' that may be true, but this of course does not mean I cannot have knowledge and insight into your special 'culture' (in the same way you achieve insight into cultures foreign as fuck to America). In any case, to reduce a huge nation to its simple 'culture' is a kind of lumping. It is only effective in a few kinds of arguments.

(The United States is a hugely moralistic country and people but it's directed outwards to other countries not to its own politics policy wise except for lip service but against individual citizens [war on drugs] so it's always ready to go to war and fight for the right [the right to fight if nothing else] which is why Rand Paul has no presidential chance as the head of a ticket, but Hillary has more than a chance)

I recommend paragraphs. But yeah, I believe like you that Hillary has more than a chance. I think she has a lock, though I wish it were otherwise. My intercession above was meant to elicit reasons for doubt.

a big war is coming

A big storm is coming. A big flood is coming. A big climate change is coming. A big stream of events is coming.

It is a big job you have taken on, Brant -- commenting in every active thread. I applaud your diligence. Here you seem to be taking a leaf from Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock: "he flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions."

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William gets into his "public scold" mode at times.

Bill, take a look at this article in the New Yorker which is about as far left marxist as you can get and still be read in the private salon that the elite NY socialite would have to read.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-2016-is-so-very-important

This magazine was always at the most expensive doctors, lawyers, wealthy coffee tables since I can remember going back to when I was five or six.

Had great cartoons and I would look through it and enjoy the cartoons and someone would explain what they meant.

But before you think of moving to Canada for a year and a half, or tuning out and reading Tolstoy and Dickens, take a peek at a new analysis of the American political firmament by Sean Trende and David Byler, of the Web site Real Clear Politics. It’s a data-driven article that examines what’s happening not only in Washington but in legislatures and statehouses around the country, which also have a significant impact on people’s lives. Trende and Byler conclude that the Republican Party is already stronger than it has been for many decades. With a good result in 2016, including a takeover of the White House, it could virtually sweep the board. Indeed, Trende and Byler say, the Republicans could end up in their strongest position since 1920, the year women got the vote.

The above red explodes with the intellectual condescension of Plato's wanna be Philosopher Kings.

However, it is an insight into how scared the marxist elites are that things may be getting away from them and shifting to a different gang.

The National Democratic Agenda Power Elite has to win the Presidency or else.

Excellent article by the way...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure she [Hillary Clinton] will be nominated.

Are you serious?

Is that a serious question William?

If Hillary ultimately fails to gain the nomination, there is surely a scenario in your mind that would explain such an eventuality.

First, William, I think you saw my early post(s) on another thread on what Evita's handlers only successful nomination strategy would be...

Oh, dear. we must go research.

1) Most critical - Keep Evita isolated from the public and the media;

2) Massive money conduits and and technology; and

3) chaos on the election days...

I will look back at your postings. I did not get the impression that you doubted she would take the Democratic crown, but that you saw ominous weaknesses in her post-nomination campaign.

But, let's say you see weaknesses/strengths in her campaign for the nomination, numbered:

1) Hillary's poor/smart campaign strategy will maintain/erode her overwhelming numerical advantage over other putative Democratic candidates. The reasons her numbers will/not erode? She will be insulated from direct media questioning (PR scrums); she will be insulated from direct public questioning and interactions (no Town Halls, rallies, etc) ...

2) Hillary's campaign for the Democratic nomination is likely to win/fail because of too much money. She will over-spend herself to failure/triumph.

3) Hillary's attempt to take the crown will fall short/succeed because of 'chaos' in the primary elections. 'Chaos' like, um, er, oh -- Iowa!

I will go have a gander at your earlier musings on Clinton's struggle to achieve her party's nod ... I do remember you posing a guess for the Democratic ticket, Clinton+Webb. If you have real doubts, now would be the time to update your prediction ...

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, this is not a sprint, it is a marathon for control of the most powerful government on the face of the planet.

I am an expert at political field organization as well as other phases of politics.

However, Evita's staff is starting to get antsy as their fund raising is not going well.

The huge amount of money in Evita's foundation is the real wild card.

If that can be tied up legally for a few months, it could seriously dent their plans.

more later..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just told me to shut up?

You've been pissed off at me for a while now.

I comment puckishly on the abundance of your posts, Brant, on the abundance of opinion sometimes backed up with fluff and feathers. This does not mean I am pissed off at you, personally, in the comment above. I spoke to your argument as presented, and I did it -- believe it or not -- without anger or personal rancour.

If the only thing you got out of that exchange was that it was an angry attack, then I have failed, of course.

William gets into his "public scold" mode at times.

Oh, Adam. Everyone scolds something or other at OL, tersely, at boring length, in one-liners and heavily-referenced reasoning. It is part of dispute, discussion, debate. The negative connotation of scold cannot attach to only one disputant. If I am a scold, you are not?

But let's say I am the only public 'scold' at OL. What attracts my scoldings? I would submit that my primary targets are shoddy or absent reasoning. The questions, if pointed or even harsh, are not unfair or unreasonable. The analysis I offer is not designed to belittle or diminish folks, but to strengthen reasoning, to strengthen conclusions, to strengthen our abilities to grasp reality.

In this instance, I may have overwhelmed poor Brant's sensibilities with my wickedness.

In the end, scold or not, I haven't seen a compelling set of reasons to doubt Hillary's nomination. Thanks for the link to the New Yorker article by John Cassidy and its views on the thesis of the RCP article "The GOP is the strongest it's been in decades." The Power Index is interesting.

I note, in scolding, that neither article assesses Hillary Clinton's nomination, let alone suggests as you do, that it is in doubt. The RCP article does not mention her at all.

The National Democratic Agenda Power Elite has to win the Presidency or else.

Yes. But you have doubt that Hillary can manage to get her party's nomination. I am testing the grounds for that doubt.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumb-ass voter videos are always a good laugh, even if they are cherry-picked by a partisan. I can't remember the last one I saw, but it was equally cringe-worthy. I wonder how long it takes to get a quota of dumbasses. The Mark Rice production is fairly popular, but hasn't yet attracted the great numbers of his viral-video Lady Gaga Admits to Pact with Satan at 2,346,343 views.

I'll let Adam off the hook. I don't think he seriously doubts Clinton will be crowned in Philadelphia. The campaign between now and then will be in some ways a wild one, but I think the wildness will be in Republican primaries, not the Democratic ones.

I suspect that USA voters who are strongly partisan have made their minds up for a Clinton/Whomever contest. Objectivists and Objectivish folks are not at all likely to vote for a Clinton no matter what. The anti-Clinton and anti-Democrat forces will as they must throw everything at her that has accumulated and will accumulate. Once the GOP have united under a candidate, that anti-Clinton battle will reach its peak.

Maybe all of us are captive to our expectations, and the expectations captive to our hopes. One hope might be that the crud from innumerable scandals will finally encumber the Clinton brand so much that Hillary will be rebuffed by her own disgusted party members. And then hope that the GOP can crush the non-entity who replaces her.

I look forward to the Republican primaries. My earlier guess that the winner would be Bush, and that he would select Walker as VP is operative, but so many events intervene before now and the kick-off, it is hard to call for anyone, native or not, expert or not in this or that odorous cloaca. I think, even with some crud attached to his name, Bush can attract as many supporters as did Mitt Romney. I hope I am wrong. He is as tired and cynical as can be, an 'establishment' candidate to his socks.

I hope he does not win the GOP nod. I hope Hillary is somehow knocked back. If wishes were horses, I'd be riding a posse with Brant.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone on OL is a scold. Duance isn't the sole exception but she's so clever with words the army should hire her for her camoflauge expertise.

--Brant

who posts too much--I know I do, I sin (I'm working on it--more to follow)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my speculative bs about the election next year and how tired and worn out flat tire Hillary gets the win in November.

Votes:

Hillary: 38%

Mass (big corporate controlled) media: 8%

Voter fraud: 5%

Her grand total: 53%

I know, it doesn't add up. It doesn't have to. She wins!

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let Adam off the hook. I don't think he seriously doubts Clinton will be crowned in Philadelphia. The campaign between now and then will be in some ways a wild one, but I think the wildness will be in Republican primaries, not the Democratic ones.

William, you do not have the power to "let me off the hook."

I would say that her chances at getting the nomination were close to 90% before she humiliated herself at the UN press conference debacle.

Now they are in the low 70% range. Trust me for a shoe in she is in trouble.

Anyone would obviously trade places with her position.

428 days is a long long time in this technological age...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...