Posted 6:01pm
liar-Hillary Clinton Is Dangerous
by DAVID CATRON

{spectator.org} ~ Many Americans have been wondering when the dummycrats-Democrats are finally going to calm down and accept the will of the voters as expressed in the 2016 election. liar-Hillary Clinton provided the answer Tuesday afternoon — never. She clearly believes that Republican control of Congress or the Presidency is, by definition, illegitimate and must be resisted by any means necessary. During an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour she said, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” She went on to say that “civility can start again” when the dummycrats-Democrats regain control of the government.

She declared, in other words, that the peaceful transfer of power which has long been the hallmark of our system of government now applies only when her side wins and that she won’t stop stoking unrest until the “deplorables” learn their place: “But until then,” she said, “the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.” By “strength” she means “violence,” as experienced by Republicans Steve Scalise and Rand Paul. The last time leading 
dummycrats-Democrats utilized such irresponsible language was in 1860, when their refusal to accept the result of an election caused a war that got 600,000 Americans killed.

If this analogy seems over the top, consider that she has been employing this kind of rhetoric for nearly two years and has worked her minions into such a demented state that the Senate had to be converted into an armed camp last week to guarantee the safety of Republicans carrying out what should have been a dignified and sedate process — the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. And remember that it was on the floor of this very chamber, “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” that pro-slavery 
dummycrats-Democrat Preston Brooks attacked Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane and very nearly killed him on May 22, 1856:
  • Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself.… Sumner was carried away.  Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers.
Like the passive onlookers to the attack on Senator Sumner, liar-Clinton’s fellow dummycrats-Democrats have been silent concerning her thinly veiled incitement of violence. Only one of the self-styled moderate  dummycrats-Democrats, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, found liar-Clinton’s remarks worthy of comment, much less condemnation. And, make no mistake about it, their silence equals consent. By refusing to call out this power-hungry harridan for deliberately casting doubt on the legitimacy of the democratic process and encouraging violence, these cowards render themselves complicit in the inevitable bloodshed. As GOP Senator Bill Cassidy put it:
  • At a time when Republicans are being shot, stabbed, doxxed, beaten, mailed powder, run out of restaurants, and sent death threats, liar-Hillary Clinton urges  dummycrats-  Democrats to be even more uncivil. What an irresponsible statement. Every dummycrats-Democrat should denounce.
Predictably, the legacy “news” media has failed to call liar-Clinton out for her comments. These are the very people who have long insisted, with precisely zero evidence, that President Trump and his supporters are somehow responsible for racist violence. Yet they have studiously ignored the dangerous implications of liar-Clinton’s rhetoric. During the interview, Amanpour responded to her incendiary remarks as if she were talking about the weather. And, as Stephen Miller points out, the media have engaged in their usual hypocrisy by condemning the routine Trump rally chant, “Lock her up,” while disregarding Her Majesty’s incitement to violence:
  • I’m noticing a strange trend of pundits who ignored liar-Hillary’s civility comments on CNN while condemning a dumb cathartic chant at Trump’s rally. If the gloves are off like she says, then the gloves are off.… She justified assaults on Senators on their front lawns and a mass assassination attempt on a baseball field. You don’t get to wag a finger at a rally crowd anymore while ignoring that.
But they will, of course, do exactly that. Amanpour works across the pond as CNN’s Chief International Correspondent, and was only able to interview liar-Clinton because the latter was visiting Oxford University to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. Evidently, the irony of this was lost on both of these characters. liar-Clinton’s ostensible concern for human rights is not exactly consistent with her description of half the U.S. voters as “a basket of deplorables.” And speaking of unintentional irony, liar-Clinton advises us that she is worried about Americans casting a jaundiced eye on our institutions:
  • Because we’re losing faith in all of our institutions. People have a low opinion of the Congress, a low opinion of the press, a low opinion of now the church, unfortunately, a low opinion of nearly everything. And if we don’t rebuild our institutions, we can’t rebuild our checks and balances. And more than any political outcome, I worry about the constitutional crisis that this will present.
That’s pretty rich coming from a woman who has spent nearly two years telling her supporters that Trump is not a legitimate President, who recently wrote in the Atlantic, “I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” and who has characterized the voters who didn’t support her in 2016 as backward. These ejaculations don’t exactly bolster the public’s opinion of our institutions, particularly when combined with her claim that “civility can start again” only when she and her party are back in power. Does that mean the kind of “civility” they afforded Brett Kavanaugh? As Mitch McConnell asked:No peace until they get their way? More of these unhinged tactics? Apparently, this is the left’s rallying cry. But fortunately, the American people know that the fact-free politics of hate, fear and intimidation are not how we actually govern in our democratic republic.

But that’s exactly how our nation will be governed if liar-Hillary Clinton and her utterly corrupt party ever get their hands on the levers of federal power again. She encourages violence against the “deplorable” and “backward” people who couldn’t bring themselves to trust her in 2016. What can we expect if she ever acquires the power to impose her warped worldview on the nation? liar-Hillary Clinton is, to put it bluntly, an unstable and dangerous individual who can’t be trusted with power — ever.

Views: 26

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hillary Clinton is dangerous, really?

She is really dangerous to her self and others.

Her and Bush are related..:)

can't edit my last posting. did i still need to post my timining.

No, we are still trying to figure all this out, but if you see a 2 hour difference in the time let me know.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service