Introduction
Satire is now almost officially dead, because anything one in the satire line might make up in order to paint a little bit purple will be discovered, almost immediately, to be something that was seriously proposed within the last 48 hours by some leading and well-respected pointy-head. I have therefore decided, in an attempt to save some sort of role for satire going forward, to see if the genre can still work by means of understatement. Instead of putting too many eggs in the pudding, suppose I just put egg whites in the pudding, one tablespoon shy. Okay then.
Unlikely Developments Are Normal Now
Just when it seemed to most all of us that the country was going to fall into the clutches of Madame Hillary, and pious Christians everywhere were retreating into their prayer grottoes to try to figure out a way to be brave—the other candidate requiring a different set of prayers, along the lines of that great hymn offered up by St. Patrick, to wit, “I bind unto myself today, the power that makes the tangerine flee,” that kind of thing—where was I?—they were all, almost to a man, wondering to themselves just how the sovereignty of God might deliver us from the terrible pickle we were in. And you know, I’ll bet you that not one of us thought that God might send us . . . Carlos Danger.
O ye of little faith!
Ah, the difference a day makes! One day Trump is grumping about how the system is rigged, rigged, he can tell you that much, and howls of indignant outrage were heard all across the republic. To say such a thing strikes at the vitals of our constitutional . . . Comey did what? “Rigged! This thing is rigged!” One minute the Trumpkins were indignant about how feckless Comey was being, and the Democrats were lauding him as the epitome of civic virtue, and then, just like two football teams when the quarter ends, they all dutifully switched directions and started going the other way. Kind of like Sean Hannity’s view of Wikileaks, only with the timing measured in seconds instead of a decade or so.
This seems to me to be as good a time as any for quoting Joe Sobran.
“The more we learn about our actual rulers, the more comical it seems that they should be presumed uniquely rational . . .” (Subtracting Christianity, p. 99).
Always Remember the Caveat
Given the theme of today’s post, it also seems that I need to reiterate my actual position with regard to the electoral hash we are being asked to choke down. I want them both to lose. I want Hillary to lose more, but I want them both to lose. I can’t make the math work yet, but they both need to lose. Why am I not voting for one or the other? “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do [the lesser of two] evil[s]” (Ex. 23:2).
Heavy Handed Celestial Writing
But with that important caveat out of the way, let us do a quick review of our actual situation.
It sometimes seems to me that God structures our current events in such a way as to indicate that He has secret sympathies with John Bunyan’s predilection for naming characters the way he did—you know, Talkative, Pliable, Worldly Wiseman, and Madame Bubble. I mean, if some no-name screenwriter were pitching a fictional movie about a congressman caught up in a sexting scandal, and the name of said congressman was Weiner, that screenwriter would get his screenplay back with insulting post-it notes all over it. But God just did that to us all, functioning in this narrative sort of like a supremely tacky Bunyan. It is like the parable of the unjust judge. If God does it, then it can’t be tacky . . . but God still did it.
And then we have to get our minds around how Anthony Weiner looks. As Wodehouse once put it about some character or other, nobody could wind up looking like that without it being partly his fault.
But Seriously, Folks
I write now as a novelist, one who has gotten much of the skylarking out of his system. Okay. Three deep breaths.
This set of observations should be taken seriously, but not as an absolute predictor of what might happen, if you catch my drift. I am a novelist, but I also understand why that screenwriter got in trouble with his editors, with the episode being remembered at his house as the night of the rude post-it notes. And there is also the matter of analyzing across genres. I write satire, while God seems to go in for farce.
Nevertheless, as a writer, if I had just finished a chapter that contained the events of the last week or so, I would be faced with the task of making sense out of all of that stuff in the subsequent chapters. Comey announces last summer that Hillary had indeed done a bunch of reckless stuff, and that she had indeed lied her head off, but that the FBI did not believe that these shenanigans rose to the level such that a recommended indictment was necessary. Oh, and also, all the protocols that the FBI follows with investigations of this nature with regular peons were deep-sixed.
Then, a week and a half before the presidential election, Comey throws everything into an industrial-sized dryer, along with a couple of cinder blocks, and announces to Congress that he is reopening the investigation on Hillary. This was because, the official line goes, additional emails that might relate to the investigation had been discovered on a laptop of another individual—the abovementioned Carlos—and so they might, ahem, be relevant. So we will continue our investigation. We promise to be quiet.
Now however modest and unassuming this letter pretends to be, it is actually an earthquake. As The New York Post would have headlined, had they only thought of it, “Bombshellery Bombs Hillary.” This is huge. If Hillary loses, everybody will attribute it to this. If she wins, she will return to the White House in much the same disheartened manner that Grendel returned to his den after he got tired of Hereot.
By the way, while I am on the subject of expectations, I should go on the record as saying that I don’t have a lot of confidence in polls to begin with. Add on top of that the fact that pollsters only know how to measure what ordinary people do in an ordinary election, of which this is not one. This has been a truly bizarre year. How do the pollsters know who to call? In normal elections, they call people based on the patterns of previous elections. So which previous election sets a reasonable template for this one? All this is to say that I have been braced for a Trump victory for a while now. These latest developments have hardly made me reconsider.
But back to our novel scenario. In my judgment, the only reasonable way to account for the events of the last week is by assuming that someone has had a metaphorical .357 Magnum placed on their right temple, or has had one taken away from their left temple, and quite possibly both. Nothing else makes any sense of this.
Unexamined emails are unlikely to be the real reason. Why would they do something that causes such high levels of consternation on the basis of what they might find? That would be truly reckless. The previous emails that the FBI had contained more than enough to recommend indictment, and so why would they go through the same risible charade again when they had already brazened it out once? We had already thrown all the popcorn we were going to throw at that particular melodrama.
So perhaps there is a smoking gun email right on the top of this new pile, one that the FBI already knows about, one that “shows intent” (the imaginary threshold that Comey appealed to in round one), or one that is a huge stinking deal, like Hillary being a spy for the Klingons. Or perhaps, and I think we are getting warmer, the FBI knows the full extent of the Clinton corruptions and has known all along, and consequently Comey is trying to manage a full-scale revolt on the part of his agents.
For my money, Comey has been forced into this position by disgusted agents who threatened to resign en masse, and who threatened to go public with everything they knew, which is no doubt significant. There have already been reliable reports that the previous reports that Clinton computers had been destroyed were false, and that they were not destroyed because FBI agents assigned to the task had refused to do it. Think about this. The general public already knows the vast extent of the Clinton corruptions, rivaling the acreage of a sewage lagoon built to service Calcutta. Think about how this is largely public knowledge, and then ask yourself, “What then must the FBI know about the Clintons?” How many file cabinets do you think they have on them?
Given that, how eager do you think the department would be to work under someone like Hillary? And before we start to chide them, wagging our finger at them, saying that a law enforcement agency should not involve itself in a political campaign like this, ask yourself whether the word whistleblower is a good word or a bad word. Ask yourself if it is possible that Clinton, Inc. is a vast criminal enterprise. Sure, more than possible. Suppose further that this vast criminal enterprise, known to be such to hundreds of FBI agents, was poised to move into the White House. And suppose it looked as though the leadership of the FBI was prepared to lend its connivance. What would be their responsibility in such a scenario?
Here is the beginning of the oath that FBI agents take.
I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .
The coming week promises to be nothing if not interesting. It has my attention, at any rate.
“And then we have to get our minds around how Anthony Weiner looks. As Wodehouse once put it about some character or other, nobody could wind up looking like that without it being partly his fault.”
Closely related to Jn. 9:2, “And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that Anthony looks like that?”
Another Wodehousism — he’s no oil painting.
But he is…. still somehow..
“Oily” all the same.????
My best take on his looks is a grown-up Eddie Haskell merged with Barney Fife. Two of my favorite TV characters, whose combined personalities might be rather close to Anthony’s.
My mother is fond of the saying: “Before 40, you have the face you’re born with — after 40, the face you deserve.”
Never heard that one before… I like it!
“There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.”
D’Souza to the contrary:
https://youtu.be/dE7E4xKUe6I
“And Trump had his, um, ‘locker room talk’ about female anatomy with Billy WHO?? And that guy was the last Republican President’s AND one of the earlier Republican candidates’ first cousin??!!
GET OUTTA HERE RIGHT NOW!”
On the last line, “and domestic” should be bold faced, double underline, italics, all caps, 72-point red font, with an anger icon behind it.
Sounds like the plot for a Robert Ludlum novel.
“Why am I not voting for one or the other? ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do [the lesser of two] evil[s]’ ”
Courtesy of Pat Buchanan, here is a list of the evil that Trump wants to do:
Cut taxes, deregulate, secure the border, deport criminals here illegally, repeal Obamacare, appoint justices like Scalia, unleash the energy industry.
None of that matters. All that matters is a video tape from eleven years ago and a few impure tweets. Plus we as Christians should be too good to vote for anybody who makes us feel icky.
Yes, I agree. We, as Christians, are called to be sanctimonious.
Russell…is that you?
Don’t forget — Trump wanted to hold women who get abortions legally responsible, too.
This quote from Exodus by Pastor Wilson seems to infer that a vote by the Christian multitude for Trump/Pence is sinful.
You, um, just got that?
So…a vote for HRC is……?
Imply. He might actually think that but he hasn’t said it yet.
It seems to be that he is saying that following the crowd to vote against your conscience would be sinful. At least, that is my position.
Sir,
Noticed a few necessary edits:
Cut taxes [for himself], deregulate [himself and his buddies], secure the border [sorta], deport criminals here illegally [maybe], repeal Obamacare [to be replaced by some other form of single payer socialist healthcare], appoint justices like Scalia [yeah right], unleash the energy industry [?].
Sometimes I forget there are actually people who believe this stuff.
Regards,
JG
Perhaps you are right, that Trump is yet one more establishment plant [i.e. Hillary Cliinton]; but for now, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt…
Why? You think a serial adulterer who spent his entire life getting rich by ripping off small business owners and his own employees, who changes his positions like I change socks, can be trusted with the promises he makes?
Ok, now this all makes more sense. Krycheck,
Please start washing your socks between changes.
That’s part of “the deal”! ????
While I would agree that Trump is a deeply flawed man, I do believe that he really does care about the country, unlike Hillary who clearly hates the United States and its people.
Your comment is satire, right? I mean, that’s so far over the top, even for you.
Is it the word ‘deeply’ that you are objecting to?
Over the top, huh Krychek? Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John Podesta, courtesy of Mr. Julian Assange: I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. Of course, we wouldn’t want to get in the way of Hillary expressing herself, because we all know how good she is at it: You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Half of Trump’s supporters? How many millions of people would that… Read more »
I have difficulty believing that your reading comprehension is so bad that you actually believe what you just said.
The email is obviously about the phrase everyday Americans, which is why he says, “it”, not “them.” Claiming the fact that Clinton has gotten tired of the phrase therefore proves that she “hates the people of America” is either a bad joke or intentional deception.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/leaked-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-hates-the-phrase-everyday-americans/
http://www.businessinsider.com/FACT-CHECK-Top-aide-did-not-say-Hillary-Clinton-hates-everyday-Americans/articleshow/54799481.cms
Jonathan said:
I have difficulty believing that your reading comprehension is so bad that you actually believe I’m the one who said it.
Believe it or not, there’s actually a difference between saying something and quoting someone. Learn to distinguish between the two.
Are you trolling for fun, or engaged in deception? Because this was the sequence: John F Kennedy said: Hillary who clearly hates the United States and its people. Krycheck responded: Your comment is satire, right? I mean, that’s so far over the top, even for you. You then responded with: Over the top, huh Krychek? Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John Podesta, courtesy of Mr. Julian Assange: I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans You were attempting to support John F. Kennedy’s claim that Hillary “clearly hates the United States and it’s people”, when email you quoted actually stated… Read more »
Oh, you poor little baby! Jonathan, I’d insult your intelligence if only I saw evidence of it. All that squid ink, so little time. Of course, you never so much as squirted a response to the other piece of evidence I offered supporting Hillary’s animosity toward the American people. You know, the part where she insulted millions of them by saying they should be put into a basket of deplorables. Even Krychek wished she hadn’t said that… publicly, but then turned around and did exactly as she did… publicly. It’s one thing to insult the other candidate; it’s quite another… Read more »
Jonathan I said you had to add up all of the illegal immigrant stats. The author stated he did not include crimes by those whose nationality was not identified. That is a part of the criminal activity that you did not add in your calculations. Not to mention all the cartel activity. Yes illegals are breaking the law by just being in the US. Please take a breath before typing so much. You are just as quick to chastise those you do not agree with. You demand apologies where none are required yet you do not see the gaping holes… Read more »
I think it is misleading to lump the two together. A legal immigrant such as myself has been thoroughly vetted. Coming here 30 years ago, I had to produce police reports from every place I had lived since the age of 18. I was fingerprinted. If there had been anything other than mild misdemeanors on my record, I wouldn’t have been approved for a green card. It is possible, but not likely, that someone will have spent a blameless 30 years in their home country then come to the U.S. and start an orgy of crime. But, if I came… Read more »
In the links and studies I provided, I gave evidence of low crimes both for immigrants as a whole, and for illegal immigrants in particular. Since illegal immigrants comprise 25% of the total immigrant population (as much as 40-50% according to the claims of many anti-immigration activists), any seriously high rates of criminal activity would have a big influence on the overall numbers. Yet the overall crime rates for immigrants are tiny, with incarceration rates as low as 1/5-1/2 of that for native-born citizens. Even if the crime rate for legal immigrants was 0%, it would impossible for the majority… Read more »
Jonathan, once again, you must add all the illegal alien crime from other sources to show the entire impact of illegal crime in the US. You keep missing the point I made.
Take a breath and relax some.
Dave, you have yet to give a single one of those “other sources”. The only source you gave and insisted I accept as truth admitted himself that he was wrong, and gave you the correct numbers. Back when you thought that you were right, and claimed that you know the truth better because you understand all the government reports better, you were berating me with: Jonathan, you need to grow up and get out more.You really are a babe in the woods.In other threads, when presented with truth discrediting his incorrect position, he discounts it as a small matter or… Read more »
Jillybean, there is a huge difference between those who immigrate legally and those who are here illegally. -Illegals are not vetted at all. -Cartel members do not live blameless lives in their home countries. -Gang members do not live blameless lives in their home countries. -Illegals will not stand in line to be vetted but rather do what they want to do. -Illegals who are deported return to the States in relatively short time periods. -The current administration allows illegals to be released time and time again after committing felony crimes. Cops call this “Catch and Release.” -The current policy… Read more »
I’m glad you distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Some who will be reading this do not, and they will be voting for Trump.
John, there is a difference between legal immigration, illegal immigration and supposed refugees being forced upon us. Unfortunately, there is also the problem of not assimilating the American culture. There are many here who refuse to participate in our culture and instead want to force their culture and ways upon us. Now, Americans Christians are not doing a great job of being Christians and have allowed our culture to drift away from Christ; but, that does not excuse our efforts to bend over backwards to accommodate other cultures here in America. To the naysayers: Yes, there is a difference between… Read more »
Let me repeat, I’m glad you distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Now convince those who disagree with you that there is a difference.
As for the many here who want to force their culture and ways upon us, you’ll have to elaborate on who, where, how, because it’s not apparent. You might also consider if it would necessarily be a bad thing, our culture being changed. Frankly the problem is more like immigrants are assimilating American culture, along with the rest of the world.
So do you believe that the great danger we face is voter fraud committed by cartel members? Because the basis of this whole conversation is your assertion that illegal immigrants are likely to commit voter fraud, even if it goes against their own interests, because they are largely violent criminals who don’t think twice about committing felonies. Give a source, a real source, for this “catch and release” term you are using. I have heard the term before, but it has nothing to do with what you are claiming it is, so I’d like to see if you know what… Read more »
The mere fact that illegal immigrants do not have legal residency in the United States does NOT mean that they therefore will commit violent felonies and voter fraud without any fear of the consequences. First, it doesn’t make any logical sense. Second, I already demonstrated numerous studies and reports of crime that suggest the opposite is true. You were not able to produce a single piece of evidence that supported your case. The ONLY author you brought up was an anti-immigration activist who had already published his own retraction admitting that he’d misunderstood the report and gotten everything wrong. The… Read more »
Jonathan. Take a breath. I said you had to add up all the illegal crime. You missed that point entirely. You have to actually dig out the data rather than just cut and pasting. The author pointed out that he didn’t include any crimes committed by those whose nationality wasn’t listed in the state reports. You missed the point. There is no disregarding truth anywhere. Instead it is digging out things that you don’t agree with. Take a breath and give your keyboard a chance to recover. When you disagree, you come out with the “I’m not going to waste… Read more »
I wish she hadn’t made the basket of deplorables comment, but in point of fact a significant number of Trump’s supporters are racists, xenophobes, anti-Semitic and otherwise are deplorable. That’s not something you say in public, but it’s true. And it’s not anti-American to say that his racist supporters are deplorable; she’s pointing out that America is better than that. And without knowing the context of John Podesta’s comment, I suspect he was talking about something similar.
Just watch some of the footage of Trump rallies on TV; they celebrate violence, hatred and anger. You don’t consider that deplorable?
And just watch the footage of Clinton supporters smashing car windows and physically attacking Trump supporters. You don’t consider that deplorable? You don’t consider that maybe they do it because of Hillary’s dehumanizing remarks? #Hillbullies!
I think the more likely explanation is that if you say things like Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers, women are fat ugly pigs, Muslims all need to be deported and blacks are too stupid to know what’s good for them, that it’s not surprising that some people who take issue with those comments might show up and express their displeasure. Hillary’s basket of deplorables comment was positively diplomatic compared to what he’s been saying for months.
Kry, listen to yourself. You are excusing actual violence and intimidation against Trump supporters based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric? On views that, if he is elected, will never survive Congress intact?
I think you need to make a closer look at who the actual bullies are here. What’s important is what people do, not what they say. And Hillary and her campaign are the enablers and encouragers of this violence. She already dismissed half his followers as “irredeemable”. That sounds like dehumanization to me – which is one of the necessary preludes to violence and persecution.
Unbearably ridiculous assertion. What did HRC do to actually bully Trump supporters? And provide evidence please. In the meantime, Trump said he would like to ‘beat the crap out of’ one protester. Another time he bemoaned that there were no longer ‘consequences’ to protesting and said ‘You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?’ When asked about the rally incident where a supporter sucker punched a black man in the face, Trump said of violent behavior in general at his events: ‘The audience hit… Read more »
The stuff you’re talking about is very minor. Here’s some actual violence from your Leftist pals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
When has Hillary denounced this? And let’s not forget the very lightly reported firebombing incident:
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/10/17/violence-against-trump-supporters-by-hillary-clinton/
Clearly your love for this narrative is inversely proportional to your ability to back it up with evidence. I have provided evidence for my condemnation of Trump’s calls to violence. And a quick search for HRC denouncing violence provided: RE the rally violence: ‘I condemn all violence in our political arena,’ Clinton told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview broadcast Friday. ‘I condemned it when Donald Trump was inciting it and congratulating people who were engaging in it. I condemn it by those who are taking violent protests to physical assault against Donald Trump.’ Her tweet re NC: The attack… Read more »
Dude, for the past 50 years the GOP has won elections by appealing to hate, fear and resentment — against immigrants, minorities, gays, the media, higher education, scientists, the courts. If you appeal to hate and anger, it’s not surprising that your party will attract the angry and hateful. This year they reached critical mass and took over the nominating process, and Trump is the result. I think a Trump presidency would be catastrophic, because it would legitimize all of that. For that reason, I’m hoping he doesn’t just lose, but gets crushed. I agree with you that it probably… Read more »
You really ought to cut back the dosage on your lyseric acid diethylamid…
Spot on. Pretty much all of the violence is coming from the Left. The same was true at the RNC. Granted, it was mostly minor stuff (shoving, spitting, stealing signs, etc.), but it was all from the Hillaristas, “Radicalized” Trump supporters and alt-righters are an MSM fairy tale.
In point of fact?
In point of fact, you are a narrow-minded bigot, a liar, and incapable of rationality.
Anyone can name-call.
Doofus.
So back around 2008, when Trump stated that Clinton would make a great president and was donating money to Clinton campaigns, did he just not care about the country yet?
The difference in this election is between someone who has an agenda she may be concealing to get elected, but is actually quite sane, calculated and well-informed versus a wrecking ball swinging through our fragile democratic system. One is a flawed candidate, power-hungry, secretive, and ethically challenged procedurally, but none the less possibly over-qualified for the job. The other hostile to democracy itself and the notion of a free press. An ignoramus spewing world-destabilizing assertions: Maybe we default on America’s debt! Why can’t we use our nukes? After all, we have them! Climate change is a hoax! Putin isn’t such… Read more »
I and many others feel quite positive about “a wrecking ball swinging through our fragile democratic system” who is “hostile to democracy itself and the notion of a free press”. Alas, I am afraid Trump will not live up to your rosy expectations.
“Have I left anything out?”
No, I think you included all of the left wing dog whistles.
I did forget that your candidate has even said that he would have sex with his own daughter, were she the offspring of another man.
If she were another man’s offspring, then she wouldn’t be his daughter, would she?
…which is not to say that that wasn’t an exceedingly bizarre way of complimenting his daughter’s appearance.
I’m glad my math added up for you. And interesting that you would find lusting after your own daughter enough to fantasize about the conditions that would make it possible to have sex with her a ‘bizarre compliment’.
*pats RandMan on the head*
The compliment is that the woman is pretty.
The bizarre (and yes, creepy, pace Jillybean) is the manner and extent of the words used to convey the compliment.
I hope it makes sense now that I’ve put it into smaller words.
It is exceedingly bizarre and very creepy. Most fathers cringe at any thought of their own daughters being viewed in sexual terms. I remember reading a silly survey twenty years ago in which men were asked if they would rather their daughters resemble Meg Ryan or Madonna. I sat there shaking my head about the 2% who voted for Madonna.
And he did it not once, but over and over again over more than a decade.
I’d say Clinton’s inner circle is a LOT more bizarre and creepy than anything about Trump:
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/03/podesta-emails-reveal-clintons-inner-circle-as-sex-cult-with-connections-to-human-trafficking/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
The odd thing is that while Bill seems pretty depraved to me, Hillary has never struck me as a sexual person. Too cold, too self-protective, in a way. I see her more as Big Nanny than as somebody with a sex life.
That seems about right…but the people she surrounds herself with are a scary lot. I’m sure the MSM/Left will call this “tin foil hat” stuff, but can they refute it? It really doesn’t surprise me that wealthy, powerful and elite people like Podesta have an interest in the occult. The fact they’d choose some sicko who claims it’s all “performance art” is fitting, too.
Awesome. Almost as much troll fun as the Baphomet statue. But not quite.
Let’s remember, saying that he would date his own daughter is not the only time that he “went there”. In a Rolling Stone profile last year, the interviewer reports him saying, “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . .” On a Dr. Oz interview this month, Trump says that he kisses his daughter, “every chance he gets”. On an appearance on Howard Stern from when his daughter was 21, he said that she had one of the “best bodies” in the world. Another time on Howard Stern,… Read more »
You say all of this as though it’s supposed to be a surprise. He’s a heathen. You expect a heathen to act like a Christian?
Trump is vulgar. He always has been and probably always will be.
No one cared until he decided to play with Her Royal Clintonness with the Oval Office as the prize.
You can quit clutching your pearls anytime.
I only expect a Christian to act like a Christian, but I expect a heathen to act with common decency, since most heathens do.
Trump is just several years ahead of the rest of scociety.
And, sadly, helping to accelerate its progress there. With the vocal support of many Christians.
It has been said elsewhere on the internet that Trump is the embodiment of our current culture, and that Clinton is the embodiment of our current politics. Our current culture is vulgar and full of unrestrained licentiousness and libido. Our current politics are corrupt and full of liars and perverts, who misuse the law to excuse their own perversions. These two things are related. Large parts of our vulgar, libidinous, licentious culture have been systematically forced upon us by our corrupt, lying, perverse politicians so that we will be more likely to excuse the perversions, lies and corruption of the… Read more »
“Trump is the embodiment of our current culture” Exactly what I have been saying, but it is the opposite of a reason to vote for him. I do not endorse our current culture. However, even though Trump may be representative of the worst features of our culture, and as both an individual and a candidate a product of our culture, it is still not true that common decency no longer exists at all, or that it is not a reasonable expectation. As you point out, culture and politics are related. It may well be that liars and perverts who misuse… Read more »
Well said.
I know a fair number of heathens, and like jillybean said, the vast majority of them don’t act anything like Trump.
His behavior suggests issues far beyond your claims that he’s just not a believer.
You and your pathetic ilk is everything that anti-Establishment/ anti-Globalist’s despise.
“Grow up”?
What happened to “evolve”? ????
After watching you get repeatedly spanked by krycheck a day or so ago, I understand why you avoid actual exchange of ideas and hide behind ‘cutsey’ DOA punnery and emoji winks.
Surely you jest randi ! ????
Krychek has denial issues with regard to simple fact.
Comey said HRC had several top secret emails in her off the record stash.
On the plus side, krychek may be taking time out for sock washing! Perhaps his penchant for arguing against fact will evolve at the same time!
I look forward to the time when humor is more at the forefront of this blog!????????????
Oh, and the below is what a “spanking” looks like, and FYI, it’s actually HRC getting the spanking. Also, it shows where Krychek is lying, not “spanking”. ; – ) “Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?” Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.” Gowdy:”Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?” Comey: “There was classified material emailed.” Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton… Read more »
In one of the primary debates Hillary claimed that the information was “retroactively classified” and not classified when she sent/received it. I haven’t heard that anywhere else so I’m assumeing it was entierly ficticious.
HRC is a serial liar. Perhaps that is why Krychek likes her so much!
Randman, I can’t explain. For a guy who likes evolution so much, I don’t see how he could support that monument to devolution, HRC.
; – ) (Hey look! A cute smiley face!)
Well, he wholeheartedly embraces that other monument to devolution: Homosexuality. But I’m willing to grant that his is a consistent cognitive dissonance.
If you don’t think Trump is a power-hungry statist who will say and/or do anything to get elected/promote himself and his “brand”, you really need to put down the Trump steak and swallow. He is simply the other side of the Clinton/Corrupt Business coin. Whether Hillary or Trump gets into the White House, our constitutional republic is in trouble, although it has been on life support for decades anyway.
The USA would be in trouble even if George Washington could be brought back for a third term. “Our constitutional republic” has been gone for decades and isn’t coming back.
Good news for ‘your’ people. The KKK official newspaper The Crusader”The Political Voice of White Christian America!” has come out supporting Trump.
Get over yourself. The New Black Panther Party were registered as team member/blogger on the official “MyObama” campaign website. You know, the same guys who stood outside of polling stations with baseball bats?
The KKK are not ‘my’ people… because I am not on the FBI payroll.
Randman, the KKK is a Democrat invention. They’re your people. And if your people are turning on her, then she really is that bad of a candidate.
Also: push for even more dazzlingly decedant heights of monetary and physical lust.
I theorize that there was ample evidence the first time, and Comey wanted to do the right thing but got pressure from above to let it go. I suspect that this gave him the urgency to do something, and a short enough time frame to make it clear there was a serious problem without time for higher-ups to effectively squelch it before the election.
So yes, I think the gun was removed from the left (sic)
Can we please start referring to Mr. Weiner by his correct title?
“Chuck Schumer lite”. ????
Whoops! Sorry, my mistake:
“Weiner struck some House colleagues as a poor man’s Chuck Schumer, emulating the master’s sometimes-abrasive self-promotion more than his workaholic pragmatism and effectiveness. Some even called Weiner “mini-Schumer.”
LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
Needs more irony. How about:
“Hillary for Gitmo”? ????
She likes Cuba anyway!
The Pilgrim’s Progress character Comey fits most is “Pliable”. Except (in this narrow slice of time that is our narrative) he starts out wrong and then does the right thing. Who knows his motivations: It may be self interest. I agree with Doug that his good name is shot with his subordinates and he will have trouble managing them as is. Or it may be redemptive. In any case he has acted in ways to earn derision for all parties. It’s possible to do the right thing in this instance but still distrusted as to his motives. Redemption may be… Read more »
We have prayed for our enemies to be made ridiculous… and God has listened.
My best guess is that Huma used his PC and received classified info on her gmail account there—that it raises the ante. Mass revolt wouldn’t help, either, of course, but that’s my guess on why the FBI is on this so quick.
There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, said a law official in the investigation quoted in Newsweek.
This soon, they’ve been through all of them? Seriously? Took the FBI months to review things the first time, and now they’ve got it done in a day?
You may be right, but count me skeptical.
Nothing except for the fact that classified information was apparently viewed by her maid, that there were numerous new emails (“destruction of government records” in the files, and that it is indeed illegal to mishandle classified information.
Sorry, RandMan, but NewsWeak is burnishing its journalistic credentials in an unspeakable way here.
I think I agree more with Scott Adams – that this latest batch contains something truly disqualifying, and Comey could not keep its existence from the public, even though he can’t be specific with the details yet.
K. While it might be nice to think that Comey’s conscience got the better of him, I am not so hopeful. Immediately, and I do mean immediately, upon hearing that the investigation was being reopened I added 2+2 and got this: Wiki-Leaks were starting to pile up and Trump appeared to be closing in the polls. Oh no! What will Comey do if his pandering to Hillary is exposed by further investigations under a Trump Presidency? Better try to cover his tracks so its not quite so obvious that he looked the other way concerning Clinton crimes. And since the… Read more »
Where is Scooby-doo and the mystery gang when you really need them?
At this point, I’d even take Inspector Clouseau!
(HRC: “And I would have gotten away with it too! If it wasn’t for those medling kids!”) ; – )
A couple of weeks ago, I postulated that the only thing that could knock Hillary off her high and mighty polling numbers was solid evidence that she regularly bites the heads off live little baby kittens.
As usual, I was mistaken.
This is better.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Weiner!
LOL!!!
Yessir, Cap’n, you just can’t make this stuff up!
Hey Cap’n,
It’s been a real ‘cat and dog’ fight. Ahem.
Thought you might like this:
https://goo.gl/tzuLp0
That’s amazing! But of course, it’s from The Red Star Tribune and (in it’s usual vacuous “reporting”) made no mention whatsoever of the 32% who voted for neither. A link is supplied to the Secretary of State’s website where it shows 9.25% did a write-in, while just shy of 6% voted for the Legal Marijuana Now party, but only .86% voted for the Socialist Workers Party.
http://ncrenegade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hillary-in-on-Bills-pedophile-express-trips-576×1024.png
Woah if true.
Normally I’d doubt this sort of thing. But this year hasn’t been normal at all.
Fits the narrative
Wow, randman cites such boring alleged “law officials”.
????
I cited a Newsweek article.
Still, more “boring” than the alleged NYPD source that says Epstien related slitherings by multiple parties are on record.
Doubt that such is true, but much more prurient. ; – )
Hey, isn’t that the rag that sold for only a dollar?
That is earth-shattering. It also explains, this, which is otherwise inexplicable. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/holder-comey-made-serious-mistake-reopening-clinton-probe-article-1.2852358
Not by might, nor by power…
As one columnist so adroitly commented in the headline – “Hillary’s Weiner Problem.”
And just in time for Holloweiner.
Is there any reason to think there will be anything new in these emails? For that matter, is there any reason to think they’re even Hillary’s emails, since they don’t appear to have come from her server?
Ever get the feeling that you might have stepped off a cliff and had better not look down?
He’s still in the short, sweet first phase of a coyote cliff overshoot.
Look down! Look up. Wave bye bye!
Eeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaawwwwwwww, poof! ????
That doesn’t answer the question of whether there’s anything new in these emails. I will bet a month’s pay (without even knowing what yours is) that a year from now, the final bottom line will be that there was nothing there, but of course, by then the election will long be over.
Then why, when all the Democrats are decrying Comey, is the White House standing by him? What does Obama know that they don’t? When is Obama next scheduled to campaign for Hillary and is he still going to show up? You might want to start saving up those paychecks, Krychek. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/holder-comey-made-serious-mistake-reopening-clinton-probe-article-1.2852358
I understood the White House’s position being that they weren’t taking a position, which is not the same thing as standing by him. And the most likely explanation is that the White House knows that long after Comey is gone, there will still be an FBI, so minimizing the damage to that agency’s reputation is a good thing.
The word “defend” is in that story. If what Tim Paul posted is true, Hillary would have a better chance of defending herself from accusations that she has been biting the heads off live kittens.
I would not doubt what Tim posted is true. The group that hangs with the Podesta’s and Clinton’s are into some very dark perversions (I guess all ‘perversions’ are ‘dark’…). A friend of my moms somehow got on a list to attend one of the parties at a Podesta family ‘hotel’ facility. These people were so shocked they left. Phallic symbols everywhere, cameras in the bathrooms so you could watch yourself urinate and defacate…. I could go on, you get the picture. People like this that run in these circles make a living off of fleecing US taxpayers and are… Read more »
If what Tim Paul linked above is true, Hillary is toast. That the emails are not Hillary’s, but about Hillary in a way that is morally damaging in some fatal way. And that would be saying something where Hillary (or any Democrat for that matter) is concerned.
This would mean that the emails detail some other federal offense than violation of the secrets rules, and were found by the NYPD as a by-blow in their investigation of sexual charges against Weiner.
I’m strongly disinclined to believe what Paul linked to above, and if you spent five minutes actually seriously thinking it through, so would you. But even if it were true, that still leaves us with this: Trump is the candidate you vote for if you want to see the world on fire. I don’t.
Trump won’t set the world on fire – it’s bad for business. For him it’s all about the deal. I am much more worried about Hillary’s problem with Putin. But if Trump blows up the current party politics (that work may in fact already have been done), I think it might not be a bad thing. I agree that it’s a long shot that any such records were left behind. However, knowing Weiner’s proclivities, he may in fact have saved something that would incriminate him and others. But whatever emails were found on Weiner’s computer, I have trouble believing that… Read more »
What if this is all part of an elaborate scheme to save the US and H is really a brave patriot sacrificing her reputation for the good of the country? No, really.
Okay not really.
By the way, while I am on the subject of expectations, I should go on the record as saying that I don’t have a lot of confidence in polls to begin with. Add on top of that the fact that pollsters only know how to measure what ordinary people do in an ordinary election, of which this is not one. This has been a truly bizarre year. How do the pollsters know who to call? In normal elections, they call people based on the patterns of previous elections. So which previous election sets a reasonable template for this one? All… Read more »
I’d put more stock in this poll skepticism if it ever meant using more reliable alternative evidence. Instead people replace actual evidence of polls with their own intuitions and prejudices (yard signs, enthusiasm, etc).
Yeah, I really don’t know how much “faith” to put in the polls, ’cause I don’t know whether they factor in the massive Democrat voter fraud or not.
You know, being the masterminds of amazing massive plots to subvert American democracy that have managed to remain completely unexposed by Republican and Democratic AG’s both, year after year, you think that the Democrats would be more proficient at everything else they do.
Also, absolutely incredible that they can maintain such a massive conspiracy without coordinating it via a single DNC or Clinton campaign chair email. I guess they use carrier pigeons.
Obviously Jonathan is not bothered by Democrat voter fraud because it does not cancel out his vote.
But, in fairness, I think Jonathan said a while back that he will not be voting for Hillary.
What is your evidence of voter fraud?
quote: “What is your evidence of voter fraud?” …said the blind man as he covered his eyes. Besides, if “evidence” was of any value in this political climate, HRC would have already been indicted. But in case you really did care, we would not have ObamaCare without voter fraud. Al Franken became the deciding vote in the Senate in an election in which a recount turned up a trunk full of votes that they had forgotten (in a Democrat district) during the initial count as well as more illegal felon votes than Coleman eventually lost by.* Naw, there’s no voter… Read more »
Except various panels of judges and even former senator Coleman’s lawyer in court said there was no fraud in the election. Just a conservative watchdog group making noise post-fact and Fox news pouring gas on it.
Also, according to Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy, with a particular focus on election administration and redistricting, there
were thirty one credible cases of voter fraud out of one billion.
Certainly, don’t waste your time fact checking your memory or anything else for that matter.
quote: “there were thirty one credible cases of voter fraud out of one billion.”
Wow. Did you ever stop to consider what believing a statement like that reveals about you?
Yes, that I value actual research and evidence. And when credible new evidence and facts are presented I am willing to change my position.
You on the other hand assert much and so far offer nothing evidentiary in return.
It has become increasingly clear that you and Krychek rely solely on the Ministry of Truth for all your “research” and “evidence.” I hate to break it to you, but they just make all that stuff up.
Your going to need a bigger tinfoil helmet in about a week.
The Ministry of Truth uses terms like ‘tinfoil hat’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ to easily manipulate the easily manipulatable.
Exactly. It’s often used by the same mental midgets who are fond of saying “You just don’t like Obama because he’s black.”
The usual suspects believe Obama’s ridiculous statement about voting being all above-the-board, decentralized and as efficient as, well, Obamacare? Here’s a starting point for the problems: http://blackboxvoting.org/
No offense, but make a relevant point and defend it with evidence. I’m not wasting my time reading links.
Well, no, you’d be wrong on that front. While my refusal to vote for either candidate means that the simplistic “I’m red, you’re blue!” cancellation doesn’t apply, obviously, if either party was winning via voter fraud and not through actual concern for what the voters wanted, than that voter fraud would cancel out my attempts to influence party nominations by refusing to vote for unacceptable candidates. I believe that voter fraud on an individual level obviously occurs. I believe that organized voter fraud on the local level, for local candidates or issues, likely occurs from time to time too, though… Read more »
If there were massive Democratic voter fraud, then that would just make Hillary more likely to win, since she is already up in the polls. The only time fraud would matter is if it flipped the expected result.
quote: “If there were massive Democratic voter fraud, then that would just make Hillary more likely to win, since she is already up in the polls. The only time fraud would matter is if it flipped the expected result.” Exactly my point. I don’t know whether polls, that up until recently showed HRC winning big, were factoring in the illegitimate votes for her or not. If the pollsters are not intelligent enough to realize that voter fraud is happening, there is little reason to believe they are bright enough that anyone should trust their predictions. But you and Jonathan keep… Read more »
Not sure I follow you. Polls wouldn’t capture any voting fraud, unless there was a concerted effort to specifically defraud not just the vote itself but also all of the polls leading up to the vote. That seems like a huge waste of effort to me. So the existence of fraud doesn’t imply distrust of polls, unless the vast conspiracy is vaster than can be imagined.
But I need to work on my messaging if you think I’m hoping for a Hillary victory.
Polls only have to closely match election results on the last week before the election to be considered accurate, for obvious reasons. Before then, they’re a propaganda tool. We’re already seeing the poll results tightening up. One poll last week reported Clinton’s support reduced by ten percent from the previous week “due to changes in who are considered likely voters”. Pollsters have means, motive, and opportunity to distort their results before the final result that gets remembered in future years. So why would you believe that they aren’t doing it?
A simple meta-analysis ala 538 should eliminate distortion, unless you believe in a truly vast conspiracy.
But if you do want to disregard polls, what alternative superior evidence do you have on which to make predictions?
Which is why some metapolling organizations (say 538) grade pollsters on their consistency and accuracy. Changing your polling model in mid-election, without actual new data, in order to get it to produce the results you want to see is considered poor form. In 2008, the vast bulk of the polls showed Obama ahead most of the election, a brief tightening of the race after the Palin VP announcement, and then McCain steadily losing ground up through voting day. There were a couple Republican-leaning polls who tried to show a tight race up through election day and then suddenly fell in… Read more »
Here’s an interesting take: http://www.mcoscillator.com/learning_center/weekly_chart/my_final_2016_poll_analysis/
So it turns out this stock market guy had a much better prediction than Nate Silver. That may be the most satisfying thing about this: the smug, latte-sipping, NPR-listening, “we have science and polls on our side” progressives were just plain wrong.
Still think the odds are in Clinton’s favour? (Perhaps you can tell me how this latest Rasmussen poll showing Trump over 50% is skewed.)
Are you trying to poison the well by suggesting an issue you already know the answer to? I’d suggest you not try to look at any one poll to mean anything. Even in the best possible poll out there, the margin of error alone means that two identically-given polls on the same day could show a +5 lead for Clinton and a +1 lead for Trump. That spread gets even bigger when we look at a whole bunch of polls and pick the one that fits the narrative we want. It’s the poll averages which continue to be meaningful. On… Read more »
Way ahead of you there. Let me know if you need help with it.
Well, I’m not going to pretend like I haven’t been extremely frustrated with the world at large, and America in particular, for quite a few years now. I gave up on both parties for good six years ago. But they seem to keep taking it to new levels.
According to 538, still 66% in her favor. A lot worse than the 88% it was, no doubt.
But it’s good to hear that polls can now be trusted.
According to Nate Silver last week, Trump’s chance of becoming president was better than the Cubs’ chance of winning the World Series.
Also, from May:
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/730251094614528000
Not sure what you’re claiming here. What specifically do you find lacking in 538’s methodology? http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
Connection to reality.
And right on schedule, the always-reliable Rasmussen has switched their forecast to Clinton +2, 45% to 43% right on schedule.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clinton-gains-and-the-polls-magically-converge/
What happened to Trump being over 50%? Oh, I forgot, it was Rasmussen.
(That doesn’t mean Trump isn’t going to win. 538 still has him at a 30% chance Even a +2% lead in the popular vote for Clinton could still mean a Trump electoral win, if he takes New Hampshire and Nevada or Colorado or Michigan. It just shows exactly why you shouldn’t trust Rasmussen.)
Suppose further that this vast criminal enterprise, known to be such to hundreds of FBI agents, was poised to move into the White House. And suppose it looked as though the leadership of the FBI was prepared to lend its connivance. What would be their responsibility in such a scenario? It’s worth mentioning that the current head of the FBI is a Republican who donated to both McCain and Romney’s campaigns. Which doesn’t make your conspiracy theory impossible, but does put a bit of a damper on its likelihood. Not that that justifies a conspiracy theory in the other direction.… Read more »