No more election equivocation. Let us be absolutely clear.

Below is copied from my top facepage message to all my friends - or "friends" - that I just posted. I thought I should make myself utterly clear so that there can not be any misunderstanding on anyone's part. If I have any trump supporters among my "friends" then I want those assholes GONE - IMMEDIATELY. It is not taking out the trash, it is more so eliminating the diseased and super-stinky sewage. -

"Election update Oct. 20 - It does not matter at this point how "criminal" HRC may or may not be behind the scenes, ditto WJC - the fact now is that anyone who has eyes and ears and who is not a damned braindead fool can easily see that donald trump is sub-human scum, just like any nazi or racist who has ever drawn a breath. Anyone who votes for him now is a piece of shit just like he is. You vote for trump now then you have to own everything he obviously is. And that makes YOU a turd of HUGE proportions yourself. Forget donald trump. YOU the trump voter are the turd-brained turd now. Please - PLEASE - just eat shit and die or just go the fuck away - for Fucking EVER.
Thank you for your kind attention. Have a pleasant tomorrow.

Why all this apparent angst when your candidate is poised to win big?

For pity's sake! It's almost like you're worried HC might not win! ???

It's not complicated. Clinton sold her soul a long time ago in exchange for being the first woman to be elected president of the United States--and in all likelihood she shall be.

Then, before her tenure is out, she's going to be impeached--if the Republicans don't lose the House and Senate--and maybe even if they do.

The Devil is clever. He granted election to the office--but how long she serves in it was another matter.

> 2

prox - I probably know as much if not more about the bad that is Clinton - Hillary, Bill and their evil spawn Chelsey - than do you. Really.

So, yes, over the decades the Clintons have taken corruption and evil to a whole new level that Richard Nixon never even dreamed of as things he thought with which he could get away.

I think that is beside the point now. As you have envisioned, it will all be dealt with - or not - during the HRC administration, starting up this January.

But most of what they have done is unknown to most people. And, unfortunately, much if not most of the stuff about the Clintons that Fox Noise feeds their idiot viewers is made up - as in not even close to true.

So we have millions of old white people believing totally false crap about the Clintons, and many millions more American citizens being ignorant of the facts that would reveal just how evil and corrupt the Clintons truly are.

Since there is no god it is easy to understand how such a sorry scenario could have eventuated. I.e.:

Shit happens.

That is the answer.

All that being said, I have the right to choose my friends. E.g., if my next door neighbor rapes his daughters, or throws his garbage out on his front lawn, or drives recklessly around the neighborhood all the time - then I want that sumbitch GONE out of my neighborhood - or I myself will have to fucking move. I sure as hell will not take the attitude that he is my fellow citizen and is entitled to his opinions and lifestyle which may be radically different from mine. He is a total shithead. One must draw a line. Period.

This is how I see trump now. Vicariously, this is how I see anyone who would vote for trump now.

In a nutshell: 1. trump is insane. 2. HRC is corrupt. 3. Corruption never smelled so good.

This is ALL I am saying. Very simple.

Anyone who misunderstands my political position now - well, that's not my fault. I've done my part. The problem would be those still confused about my precise position. Apparently Mother Nature has short-changed such individuals regarding total I.Q. points. Not my problem.

Have a nice day, prox.

Meh. What's the point of criticizing Nazis and racists if you're happy to speak about some other group of human beings in terms like "eliminating the diseased and super-stinky sewage"?

> 4

The diseased and super-stinky sewage I was referring to ARE the racists - and in some cases are the same or worse than nazis.

E.g.,
IF your grandmother thinks she is ontologically-superior in some way to blacks, that all muslims are evil because they are not christians, that the homeless choose to be homeless, that less money for welfare and more money for the military are needed, and/or that gays are evil sinners bound for hell,
THEN your grandmother is worse than a nazi. And her name is legion amongst white people in America.

OK?

>5 JGL53: Yes, I understand. But when you get to the point of saying, "Oh, it's okay to talk about some groups of people as garbage, because those are the BAD people", you're opening the door to just the kind of hateful rhetoric that you're trying to denounce.

> 6

Yes we get your message, _Zoe_.

We all MUST be tolerant of the intolerant - no matter how intolerant THEY are - by moderating our criticisms. A good "Now, Now." and a low-key "Tut, Tut." is quite sufficient to shame them into improved behavior and language.

E.g., Jews must not say bad things about the nazis because then the Jews are no better than the nazis - as they just keep the door open to the same hateful rhetoric that should always, in all cases, be denounced and shunned. To call a nazi "scum"? - obviously beyond the pale and just unnecessarily exacerbates the situation.

Thus, we must at a minimum be polite at ALL times - even to, say, a Jeffery Dalmer. We wouldn't want to dehumanize Jeffrey just because we disagree with him about fucking, then killing, then eating the flesh of young men. We should all just be British about it, keep a stiff upper lip and inform Jeffery, as politely as possible, that his behavior is not up to par and that he should think about seriously considering leaving off the rape, murder, and cannibalism in future - you know, because the majority of people just agree, politely, that such behavior is NOT acceptable in a polite society.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

So - I see your point, _Zoe_.

It's just that I don't agree.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts. If some of us are better persons now because you spoke up then it was well worth the effort on your part.

Evil triumphs when good men - or women - remain silent and don't speak up.

Yes.

>7 JGL53: If I might echo _Zoe_ here (at least I think I am): there is a BIG difference between "not speaking up" and speaking effectively. MLK, for example, spoke effectively, called racism what it was and helped initiate a revolution in civility and equality in this country (obviously we're not done yet). He didn't come out screaming "kill/lock up all the racists" even though I wouldn't have blamed him if he did. The point is when you dehumanize people, they stop listening to you and you have lost whatever chance you have of persuading them to change. Possibly you never would anyway but why not try? Why not give others the chance to stand with you in the noble intent to improve society rather than just throw part of it in the trash -- which is impossible anyway?

ETA: The only reason I can think of not to engage politely is that is is so painful to talk to close-minded people, so it's a matter of self-comfort. At least I feel that way myself.

>8 krazy4katz: The only reason I can think of not to engage politely is that is is so painful to talk to close-minded people

When we post something to the internet, we aren't just talking to the people we're angry at, we're talking to everyone else who might be listening. In fact, we might be primarily talking to them, because no one expects when you call a person a racist nazi that they will turn around and say, you're right, and I'm wrong, I'm so sorry.

> 8

Who said my goal here was to "speak effectively" to scum? Who said I was worried about "dehumanizing people", i.e., scum? Who said I was trying to "persuade" scum "to change"? Who said I was in the least interested in "engaging politely" with sub-human scum?

I am surely interested in "engaging politely" with those that are not beyond the pale of human decency. The ones that are beyond that pale? - well, they are invited to go do the impossible and fuck themselves. I look with utter contempt upon the utterly contemptible. It's a thing. So sue me.

HRC is going to win and trump is going to lose, no matter what I say - or even if I had died last December of a brain hemorrhage. I believe that liberal politics worldwide will triumph one day no matter what I say or don't say or do or don't do.

I personally think that refraining from identifying and denouncing evil = acquiescing to it. It is that simple. No tolerance for the intolerant. Once they are defeated then we can treat them nicely. Like the U.S. with Japan, as an analogy. If you don't get the analogy, then OK. Whatever.

> 9

Precisely.

>10 JGL53: When I said politely, I didn't mean that one shouldn't be forceful and very clear or even angry. I just meant throwing a bunch of names at people doesn't really seem like an approach that could ever work so why bother. But I am no expert. I certainly haven't rescued any "deplorables" that I know of. I was just thinking of strategies used by role models who have actually accomplished something.

>9 southernbooklady: If we are not talking to the people we are angry at then there is definitely no reason to throw around a bunch of words.

Anyway, as I said, I am no expert.

>11 krazy4katz: If we are not talking to the people we are angry at then there is definitely no reason to throw around a bunch of words.

I don't know why you think so. But you imply that such words are chosen carelessly, that they are not saying precisely what the speaker intended them to say. I don't think that's an assumption we can make.

It's perfectly possible to identify and denounce evil actions without referring to anyone as "sub-human scum".

No tolerance for the intolerant. Once they are defeated then we can treat them nicely. Like the U.S. with Japan, as an analogy.

The difference between us is apparently that I don't support the use of nuclear bombs on civilians.

"I look with utter contempt upon the utterly contemptible. It's a thing. So sue me."

I actually sympathize with this view--and I like the style of the expression of it. But for me, there are extremely few who truly qualify as utterly contemptible. But, OMG, they do exist.

While many of Trump's beliefs offend contemporary tastes and mores, they aren't such as to justify the vilification to which he's been subjected.

Most of all, what you and those like you aren't mindful of is that, unless a political order which wants to pretend to be democratic can afford to grant its supposedly sovereign electorate opportunities which include the potential to make what many vehemently argue is "a terrible mistake," then those, so full of their sanctimonious and self-satisfied pride in the system which easily accommodates their blind prejudices are kidding themselves to think that theirs is a system of respectable self-government--several steps removed.

Fuck it: if we aren't allowed enough leeway to do what the Technocrat Mandrinate think is unthinkable, then my view is: Damn right, yes, if there's no other and better way out of this, then figuratively or literally, it's time to burn down the citadel--and good riddance.

Hillary and her look-alike chums are so supremely confident of their untouchable places that they've become predictably rotten and corrupt. This is non-partisan human-nature.

Look, there are things Trump says, points he makes, which, among all the hair-raising stuff, are both true in sum and _very_ much need to be said because, today, the slightly older-than-I hippies of the Sixties have become dangerous intolerant doctrinaire ideologues in their own right and they _refuse_ to accept, let alone cite aloud the things I'm talking about.

We can't, unfortunately, magically restore some of the lost cachet and savior-vivre of the Thirties, Forties and Fifties but there _were_ aspects the loss of which are rightly to be regretted. But lapsed proponents of peace & love stick adamantly and exclusively on the worst about those decades as they (at times but not always) rightly see them: the racism and sexism are their favorite monster-aspects.

But we actually could recover something of that time which made sense and was valuable but which the high-bandwidth contemporary world dismisses as insignificant--mainly because they never knew it. And we really ought to try.

Some men whistle at women--individuals, not _"all women"_--they see as sexy.

Guess what? Some of those women secretly or not, like being so attractive that a man would signal that by a whistle. You can take your goddamned squeeky p-c brave New World where such behavior is a punishable sexual harassment and stuff it.

Words, gestures, winks--'making a pass' at a person viewed as desirable is not a crime. It can be a nuisance but it's part of life's necessary nuisances.

Seeing something deemed worthy in Trump's campaign and policy positions is not, nor ought it be, beyond the pale. Trump might be a huge mistake but if we simply don't even have the right to make that mistake then our system becomes instantly irrelevant and pointless.

Meh. What's the point of criticizing Nazis and racists if you're happy to speak about some other group of human beings in terms like "eliminating the diseased and super-stinky sewage"?

It's not dehumanization he's against, it's some specific instances of it.

>13 _Zoe_: It's perfectly possible to identify and denounce evil actions without referring to anyone as "sub-human scum".

It's possible, but it's not required. But I think I must also deserve your censure because on one of these threads I described Trump as a "bottom-feeder." And yet, I stand by that description.

FWIW I don't why it's such an issue that someone tells somebody else to get the fuck off their Facebook page and if it's because they don't agree on a political issue or politics in general so be it. And if they're mean and nasty in doing so---well, whatever. Generally I find most of JGL's commentary especially this election cycle to be on target. I have an extended family many of which are right wingers and I'm not really interested in telling them all to go fuck themselves. OTOH I don't have a Facebook account either. So I'll see them at thanksgiving, christmas (most likely avoid easter) and maybe a few times over the course of the year leave it at that. Which is to say that tolerance goes so far and there's other ways to ignore people.

Anyway a couple days ago a friend was over and we jammed on our guitars and drank alcoholic beverages. When he'd had enough and was leaving this van was parked at the end of my driveway. A middle aged lady finally gets out and wants a word with me. I with IPA in hand said okay---she wanted to give me this political ad that you wrap around your door knob from our congressman. I told her someone had already left me one and it went right straight in the recycle bin. What did I think of Obamacare? I said it didn't go nearly far enough. We should have something similar to the Scandinavians or the Canadians. Well would I say I was a conservative or a democrat? I would say I was left (which by the way doesn't mean I'm a democrat)--then I put it the way Mr. Harsch once put it--a social anarchist and an economic socialist. She was originally from England apparently--(she announced that anyway and she had the accent) and hearing the word socialism threw her into something of a tirade. She told me she lived through all that and that Margaret Thatcher had saved the world and capitalism. I loathed and loathe Margaret Thatcher (I'm not sorry for her dementia or that she's dead; she was evil; her family is too)--and the rest of our conversation I was helpless keeping the sneer off my face. She retreated telling me shit like how in a socialist world I'd have three more people living in my house (my house is nowhere near a mansion) and that remark was utterly ridiculous and to vote for Donald Trump--'he has the right ideas'. At which point she hopped into her car and fucked off to wherever she fucked off to. I turned to my buddy and I said 'she wants me to vote for Donald Trump?' He couldn't fucking believe it either.

Just for the record what one's modus operandi on internet forums is is not necessarity exactly like how one may act in one's real life. I do have a real life, believe or not - I am not just an internet ghost.

As a e.g., last night I went out to dinner as a member of a party of four. The two women present were both celebrating their recent birthdays - presents were exchanged, etc.

So, one of the women - not my S.O. - is a trumpet, based entirely on hatred of HRC. (And I knew this beforehand.)

During the evening politics did come up and guess what? - I did not attack her personally, but I did offer up my opinion of trump, sans the profanity I am wont to use on the internet. In any event she acknowledged that trump is going to lose now, and evil hillary will soon reign supreme. So it was not like she was a total lunatic or something, lol.

It was established that we are each entitled to our own opinion so then all food was eaten and none was thrown. So, life goes on, everywhere and anywhere, as usual, despite my rants proffered on the ether on a regular basis which some few people have a negative reaction to and then so what.

>17 lriley: "FWIW I don't why it's such an issue that someone tells somebody else to get the fuck off their Facebook page and if it's because they don't agree on a political issue or politics in general so be it. And if they're mean and nasty in doing so---well, whatever."

I never said someone can't do it. I certainly wouldn't tell someone what to say or not say. My feelings about Trump come close to that. I just think it is not an effective way to start a meaningful conversation. Since this is a group where people can state their opinions about the other people commenting, I did. Why start a meaningful conversation? Well, maybe it's ego -- "at least I tried". Maybe, because you never know, someone might listen. There is always that 1% chance...

>18 JGL53: Admirable restraint. ;-)

> 13

That's an interesting conversation that could be had at length if someone wishes to start a thread.

I myself find the immolation of more than a quarter of a million people, mostly women, children and the elderly, to be definitely mentally disturbing - what we might call mass involuntary cremation, to coin a phrase. It is sick what humans sometimes do and what the average human is capable of in certain circumstances.

The problem is that during war ALL bets seem to be off - for most people.

So - take into account that the American military and our allies did not torture captured enemy soldiers. That was a Bush/Cheney thing that happened decades later. Also, when enemy territory was captured or recaptured by the Allies, the population was not subjected to rape and out and out murder - basically treating humans like animals for the slaughter.

Not so the Japanese or German military. E.g., the way the Japanese military treated Chinese civilians, not to mention captured enemy soldiers, is as gross if not more so than the decision to use the atom bomb - and we are talking about a hell of a lot of more victims in any case. If given the chance, you don't think the Japanese soldiers would not have treated American civilians the same way?

Also Pearl Harbor. Yes, they were men - and military men at that, sure - who were minding their own business and then died horribly, many of them drowning in sinking ships they could not escape. Murder is murder. Why is the murder of a 20 year old man less horrible than the murder of a child, or a woman, or an elderly person? Fuck that.

>1 JGL53:

Just curious: which network do you work for?

(hey, a little levity never hurt anyone)

>4 _Zoe_: "What's the point of criticizing Nazis and racists if you're happy to speak about some other group of human beings in terms like "eliminating the diseased and super-stinky sewage"?"

I would say the distinctions are:

- Nazis/racist views are based on what people are, not what people do (therefore unfair/inhuman), whereas JGL53's views are based on people's freely chosen actions and statements (may we all be thusly judged), and...

- Nazis and racists were/are a bit more troublesome than simply "speaking about some other group" etc.

Despite being one of JGL53's turd people, I have zero issue with what he said or how he said it.

> 22

I can understand your confusion.

"Thank you for your kind attention." was and probably still is a standard ending on business letters.

"Have a pleasant tomorrow." - I believe I stole that from SNL.

The fact is that I am never fair and balanced. Thus, I would never be hired by any network.

I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Apparently.

> 23

"...Despite being one of JGL53's turd people, I have zero issue with what he said or how he said it."

If so, then you are a very special turd person.

>25 JGL53:

Thank you for recognizing the fact!

>16 southernbooklady:

There is a substantial difference between a severe condemnation of a person, and lumping tens or hundreds of millions of people together as "sewage."

I join you in your condemnations of Trump, and I certainly think voting for Trump a terrible thing to do. But I'm not willing to extend that sort of blanket, stem-to-stern dehumanizing condemnation to half or more of all American voters.

Now, if you quibble with half, let me bring up what is, for me, near the top of his crimes—a ban on Muslims from entering the country. I think it's despicable, but, as has been noted, more than half of Americans favor it, including 30% of Democrats. Similar numbers agree that Muslim neighborhoods should have special police patrons. You could go down the line of gross views and find large numbers of Americans supporting, including many voting against Trump.

Or go back, are we really going to assert that--what--90% or more of southern whites before 1970 or so were "human sewage"? (Not my family, of course, since we all consciously decided to be born in New England and deliberately chose the conventional views of educated New Englanders, but most white, southern families surely.) Shall we call 95% or more of Africans today "super stinky" human waste because they're anti-gay to an extent that would shock most American Republicans? Are they any people in, say, Afghanistan--where even a large majority of women favor spousal rape--who possess the enlightened views, and ensuing right to be considered people, not excrement, that the educated American liberal acquired through no effort of his or her own?

Sorry, people have shitty views. They believe shitty things. We should condemn those views and things. We should try to educated, persuade, change. But we shouldn't write them all off in terms that, as stated, deprive them of the humanity we pretend to care about.

"His situation, insofar as he was a machine, was complex, tragic, and laughable. But the sacred part of him, his awareness, remained an unwavering band of light."

>27 timspalding: Or go back, are we really going to assert that--what--90% or more of southern whites before 1970 or so

Context matters, of course, but we're talking about Americans in the 21st century. We're talking about people who grew up in a society that doesn't approve of this, and still chose those attitudes.

>29 prosfilaes: So you would give up and used the scorched earth technique? We are making progress! It takes a long time.

>8 krazy4katz:

Possibly you never would anyway but why not try? Why not give others the chance to stand with you in the noble intent to improve society rather than just throw part of it in the trash -- which is impossible anyway?

>11 krazy4katz:

I certainly haven't rescued any "deplorables" that I know of. I was just thinking of strategies used by role models who have actually accomplished something.

I think you can have more of an effect than you might imagine. There was an article on the New York Times website recently* that discussed how even mild push-back against offensive remarks can reduce the likelihood of the speaker repeating said remarks. As you indicate, it's extremely unlikely that you're going to change someone's basic worldview with a few choice words, but you can probably get them to speak a little better of others. That counts for something, doesn't it? (And you'll feel a lot better than you would if you didn't say anything.)

* http://nyti.ms/2dXUSLP

>31 artturnerjr: Thank you for your comments and the link. I agree that it's always worth trying. You never know who you might reach.

>3 JGL53:

These statements are why I'm not voting for either major party candidate.

>33 BruceCoulson:

;^)

>27 timspalding:

Leaving aside our differences of opinion about the potential utiity of fighting one kind of fire with another kind--preferring to endure Trump's revolting traits rather than validate the DLC dynastic rule, your comment was a brilliant and too rare piece of insight here.

There are _no_ progressive candidates in this race, no one I'd qualify as even a moderate, certainly no liberals or leftists--none. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with deliberately preferring the worst of the right-wingers as a strategic device to reject a duopolistic fraud on electoral democratic practice.

In electing Clinton, we are not advancing or protecting democracy, tolerance, enlightened virtues or any other desirable outcome. We're playing the dupe's part in a con game.

Using Trump as a last-resort means--for he is that; there is no other legal, non-violent recourse open to us-- to stop this fraud is a reasonable and even morally respectable position, much more so, in my opinion, than _any_ of the reasons advanced for voting for Clinton.

Those here who bleat that Trump is beyond the pale, who are proponents of #Never Trump, are the the oligarchy's useful idiots. You say, in effect, "Nope, what we have as a democracy will do." It won't. And I'll favor any honestly argued means available to counter it.

>29 prosfilaes:

"Context matters, of course, but we're talking about Americans in the 21st century. We're talking about people who grew up in a society that doesn't approve of this, and still chose those attitudes."

Fiercely loyal Nazis in 193Os Germany could have said the same about their beliefs--and many did.

Thus, Goebbels would applaud your comment but he's rotting in his grave.

"Context matters, of course, but we're talking about Germans in the 2Oth century. We're talking about people who grew up in a society that doesn't approve of this (polluting the pure German race by mixing with inferior races), and still chose those attitudes."

---Just as Jewish "purists" still argue today about intermarriage. s

Some odds and ends about the presidential race:

■ Clinton's polls should be slightly discounted to reflect the stigma--as one sees it--of answering "I'll be voting Trump." That might be 1%, 2% or even 3% depending on where the respondents are since we have no reason to suppose that Trump's numbers are over-reported and good reason to suppose they're underreported due to stigma. Thus, with a margin of error, Clinton's polls could be overestimated by as much as five percent in some cases.

■ Opinion - surveys which poll "voters" ahead of actual votes don't and can't predict election results except coincidentally. Look at Nate Silver's graphs and it's obvious that results shift from day to day and week to week. He does not predict what the polls tomorrow will look like because he can't. Instead, he speculates about various outcomes. In short all prognosis of probability of victory or defeat is sheer guess-work.

■ First, restore at least a semblance of respectability to the political and electoral institutions--so that they aren't just a complete affront to democratic principles. Then--and only then-- does it make sense to raise "hair-on-fire" alarms about the peril to our political order. Our political order is an oligarchy. There is _zero_ reason to "save" it from the "ravages" of a Trump.

→ There's a corollary to this : the Democrats had a candidate--Bernie Sanders--who was moderate and yet greatly appealing and could have more safely won the White House--and led the way to the House and Senate's majorities for the party. Rather than take that obvious saner course, the party establishment chose a venal and cynically run operation to impose a widely-disliked and distrusted person on the country and even did so in the face of clear evidence of serious impeachable offenses.

The rank-and-file voters' reply to that decision of betrayal should be, must be, severe and resounding in its
its rebuke. There's no compromise with such blind hubris as we see from the DLC's control.

The message of a Trump defeat of Clinton would be short and simple: "you're done; now get lost."

Sanders himself undermined this by endorsing and campaigning for Clinton.

Now it's war. And may the Clintons' supporters get a snout-full of her before she's thrown out of office.

■ What possible reasons can one advance for the assumption that we may afford to wait for better, more propitious circumstances to deal with this mess? In other words, why imagine that we've still got more peaceful and polite opportunities ahead to correct things?

If you can make out a sound case for such optimism, I'd l
like to see it.

■ Electing Clinton first, then impeaching, trying, convicting and removing her is of course seen as the more cautious, safer, route. That way, her case is handled in due time and formal order and the successor surely no worse than a Clinton, Trump or Pence. But this does almost nothing to address the fundamental rot in the system--which remains undisturbed.

■ RE : >3 JGL53: → "Apparently Mother Nature has short-changed such individuals regarding total I.Q. points. Not my problem."

Darwin gave us a stark picture: as long as we are extant, whatever constitutes "human," is evolving; there's no reason to suppose this is smooth, harmonious or positive across all populations at all times. It's not only true that intelligence can lag or advance relatively, the very distinct possibility exists of two or more quite distinct human groups evolving in our "midst" with the claims of and the alleged evidence for and against their appearance a very passionately disputed and divisive issue. Not only could it rip existing societies apart over practical questions, opening new and violently-disputed questions around the very meaning and definition of "human society" itself, but it seems reasonable to suppose that very fundamentally different and incompatible politics would appear early and prominently and become more pronounced. .

I'm not sure what, besides their blatant smug conceitedness, makes Hillary Clinton's supporters so confident that they belong to the enlightened avant-garde in such a parting of the ways.


■ RE: >3 JGL53:

"prox - I probably know as much if not more about the bad that is Clinton - Hillary, Bill and their evil spawn Chelsey - than do you. Really."

Okay, were you aware of this? :

Speaking of smug, conceited--and, did someone say "nasty"? Okay, then, well, just read on:

Posted on October 20, 2016 by Paul Mirengoff in Hillary Clinton

Clinton security detail also considered Hillary a nasty woman

( http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/report-clinton-security-detail-als... )

Donald Trump has drawn criticism for saying of Hillary Clinton during last night’s debate: “What a nasty woman.” Supposedly, this remark will hurt Trump. If so, it may be because Trump, having so viciously attacked Republicans like Ted Cruz and George W. Bush and having repeatedly called Clinton a liar and a crook, lacks standing to call anyone nasty.

There is no doubt, however, that Clinton is a nasty woman. I think all but her most hard core supporters recognize this.

That Clinton’s State Department security team considered her nasty has been widely reported based on FBI documents from its investigation of Her Highness. The depth of its dislike for Clinton comes through in this report¹ in the New York Post, via Debra Heine of PJ Media, that members of her security detail privately snickered after she fell down and broke her arm.

It’s hard for me to imagine disliking someone to the point of being happy she sustained a serious injury. But then, I never had to work for Hillary Clinton.

One agent told the Post:

We sort of got the last laugh. It was kind of like payback: You’re treating us like s**t. Hey karma is a b*tch! We were smiling to ourselves.

Clinton reportedly made things worse by blaming the security team for her tumble:

She blamed us for breaking her elbow, saying it was our fault and we could have prevented that. She’s bad news.

Bad news on multiple fronts.

Stories of Clinton’s rudeness and contempt for those who protect her date back to her days as First Lady of Arkansas. They persisted through her time as America’s First Lady (and let’s not forget the Travelgate scandal). Now, it’s clear from FBI documents that Clinton remains a very nasty woman.

Trump is nasty too. But the accounts I’ve read suggest that he treats the people who serve him well. A number of them vouched for this in speeches at the Republican Convention.

Still, Americans don’t perceive Trump as less nasty than Clinton. It’s a pity that the GOP didn’t nominate a conservative who projects the personal decency that Hillary so plainly lacks.

-------------------

¹ : (from a story at The New York Post (linked within the above)) :

Hillary Clinton’s security detail laughed when she broke her elbow by Jamie Schram

http://nypost.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clintons-security-detail-laughed-when-she-b...

“She blamed us for breaking her elbow, saying it was our fault and we could have prevented that. She’s bad news,” the agent said.

The agent’s account backed up FBI documents released this week that showed Clinton’s protective detail despised her for treating them with contempt.

“When I first met her, we were given specific instructions: don’t look at her, don’t look at her general direction and if you need to talk to her, keep it short and stay out of her way,” the agent told The Post.


Hillary Clinton, with her arm in a sling from her broken elbow, walks with President Obama in the White House. Photo: Getty Images

‘It was kind of like payback. You’re treating us like s–t — hey, karma is a bitch!’

The agent also said Clinton acted like she was president while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and once made a visibly annoyed President Obama wait for her as she schmoozed with foreign dignitaries at the United Nations.

“She was treating every stop like a campaign stop for the presidency, shaking hands with everyone and looking like a presidential nominee. It was like she was running for presidency for all the years she was secretary of state,” the agent said.

The incident happened in either 2009 or 2010 during the General Assembly as Clinton and Obama were making their way into a Security Council meeting with foreign leaders, the agent said.

“She took her nice sweet time shaking hands and schmoozing with the dignitaries,” said the agent. “She made the president wait to go into the meeting. She was making a fashionably late entrance.”

The agent added, “She was basically saying, ‘I don’t wait for the president, the president waits for me.’ Obama stopped, turned around and rolled his eyes a little bit. He looked at her in a way that inferred, ‘Let’s go.’”

By contrast, the security detail loved former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Clinton’s predecessor who served under George W. Bush.

“Condoleezza Rice was a true diplomat. She built a lot of rapport with her security detail. She would talk to you about family, football, she was one of the boys,” the agent said. “Hillary didn’t care. If you weren’t in her little inner circle — Huma Abedin or Cheryl Mills – she wanted nothing to do with you.”

A Clinton spokesman did not immediately respond to a call or email request for comment.

(Note: emphasis added above)

Wow. Some of you people sure can get your panties in a giant wad defending politeness. It comes off as sort of self-righteous. Sorry, but that is the way YOU sound to me. Some just do not care for my attempts at facetious humor - at all. OK. I eventually come around to accepting this inevitable fact of human diversity. I myself will not get that highly insulted. That would be taking others seriously. I can't do that.

My comments such as 'Mother Nature short changing someone of I.Q. points' is just a facetious way of expressing my frustration at explaining my points over and over again, making them crystal clear, and STILL there are many demanding the right to interpret my remarks in the context of THEIR presuppositions and prejudices and THEIR established PROPER way of discussing serious issues.

Of COURSE such people are not dumb. They are merely warped (Excuse me, their mode of thinking has been warped - they themselves, in their true essence, are wonderful and amazing creations (of blind Mother Nature or a perverted Father God, take your pick).

And, so, specifically, regarding my use of words like "sewage" to describe my fellow man (and sometimes woman) - yes, I am aware of the difference between noun and verb, or noun and adjective. I sat through many a sermon as a child hearing the "hate the sin, not the sinner" Bullcrap repeated repeatedly as if it were great wisdom.

Yes, people are not sewage, even when their beliefs, convictions, and prejudices are. But calling people sewage is just shorthand in condemning their sewage ways. In the future I guess I must needs use the following phraseology to avoid inducing self-righteous conniption fits in others - "So-and-so is probably a decent person at heart but their thinking was warped along the way by circumstances and now their IDEAS, BELIEFS, and CONVICTIONS regarding (politics, religion, a specified social issue, or whatever) are incredibly stinky sewage.

Yes, I must take time to clarify my PRECISE criticism to avoid inadvertently leading the sensitive down some primrose path of fruity self-righteousness.

I now apologize for (inadvertently) doing such a dastardly thing.

>38 JGL53:

"conniption fits"? Seriously? Wait!--never mind: you already told us--disingenuously--that you _can't_ take others seriously.

Typical. Mock-umbrage used to defensively and aggressively deflect what was merely par-for-the-course commentary in reply to you. You should decide whether you're apologizing for or defending your comments--choose one and "own that," rather than lecturing us while you "offer" aggressive blaming thinlyb disguised as a fake "Gee! I'm sorry!" --when, no you're not. If you're going to say, in effect, "lighten up," don't forget to lighten up _yourself_.

> 39

You are a trump voter.

(In most quarters that would be enough but leave us continue.)

Your reasoning is that we should elect trump to throw a spanner into the machinery of on-going political corruption. You envision a trump Presidency as probably not being so bad - not compared to evil Hillary - OR you are just willing to take the biggest god damn chance in the universe JUST to put the evil Clintons away for good. As a good anarchist should, you wish to tear the system completely down and then worry about what will built in its place - later.

Jesus Christ on a stick.

Looky - when people of your level severely criticize MY ruminations and cogitations I am flattered and well-pleased.

It would only be when someone like you expressed agreement and a feeling of comradery with me that I might actually do the unthinkable - utterly doubt myself and my thinking and severely reevaluate.

LOL.

>38 JGL53: Hey! It's a message board! So sarcasm, facetiousness etc. don't come off so well.

So sue me! ;-)

> 41

Well, we could all commit to keeping things simple, straight-forward, devoid of poetic expression, and plain and dull as white bread. I guess. But if the day ever comes when the only flavor of ice cream available is just plain old vanilla - well, I don't think I would want to live in that world.

LOL.

For anyone interested, here's a pretty comprehensive spreadsheet indexing significant Clinton WikiLeaks emails. Let's just say it's been making the rounds. About as minimal a filter as you can get.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgwLHAC5mk9Ghblc6O7AXzxX5dNLlMg0hHUn-D_A...

>27 timspalding: Sorry, people have shitty views. They believe shitty things. We should condemn those views and things. We should try to educated, persuade, change. But we shouldn't write them all off in terms that, as stated, deprive them of the humanity we pretend to care about.

I don't actually disagree. But logically I know that a commitment to freedom of expression includes the right of people to express really reprehensible things, just as a commitment to freedom of religion includes the right of people to worship really awful stuff. Where that commitment runs up against a wall is when the exercise of infringes on the rights of other people -- threats and stalking that create an unsafe life for the person being stalked. Interference in the private lives of people who are not of your religion, etc, etc.

All of which is pretty far from someone posting something angry on facebook. And here I have to say that as a rule I approve of anger in a conversation, generally more than I approve of an imposed civility. Anger is an honest emotion. It has its place. The people who are on the receiving end of it know exactly where they stand. The people who see it know exactly what it is. And civility, as laudable as its goals might be, is often used to suppress and silence people who are justifiably angry. It can be manipulative. It can be abused. Not that I think that's what happened in this conversation, but I often find myself wanting to defend the angry voice nonetheless.

Now, if you quibble with half, let me bring up what is, for me, near the top of his crimes—a ban on Muslims from entering the country. I think it's despicable, but, as has been noted, more than half of Americans favor it, including 30% of Democrats.

It is despicable. I also note that it is, to date, a theoretical crime, thank god, one that exists entirely in Trump's fantasy of "things I would do if I were president." But then, I didn't need a theoretical anti-Muslim statement to know that Trump is an opportunistic racist. That's been clear from the start, and his supporters have managed to rationalize it or swallow it. So when it comes to "crimes" -- heck even just reasons not to vote for Trump, you don't need to cite some anti-Muslim immigration policy. All you need to do is look at the way he treats women. Brown people. Hell, anyone who opposes him or tries to thwart him. He is pretty much one of the most repugnant people on the planet, and the fact that he made it far enough up the political ladder to become the candidate for president of one of the two major political parties in the country is a source of shame and a condemnation on all of us as a nation. Our hubris created Trump, that same hubris supports him. He might be the bottom feeder, but we, as a nation, have let ourselves become the mud he grubs around it.

How's that for blanket condemnation? :-)

>38 JGL53: My comments such as 'Mother Nature short changing someone of I.Q. points' is just a facetious way of expressing my frustration at explaining my points over and over again, making them crystal clear, and STILL there are many demanding the right to interpret my remarks in the context of THEIR presuppositions and prejudices and THEIR established PROPER way of discussing serious issues.

That's called a discussion. Do you expect people to just absorb your views with no comment. That would make for a boring thread.

> 45

"That's called a discussion. Do you expect people to just absorb your views with no comment. That would make for a boring thread."

No.

I am talking about the utter misunderstanding and utterly wrong restatement of my points - the distorting of my expressed viewpoint that is not inadvertent - that could only have been engendered by low I.Q., a warped brain, or an evil lying disposition a la' donald trump.

I have problems with that, bub. I would think most people do.

It is someone saying I said something that I did not say.

That's not nice. BUB.

Also this babyish calling for politeness and civility.

Again, should the Jews have been more polite to the Nazis at the beginnng? Should the kulaks been more polite to the psychotic commie dictators? Would that have made the world a better place?

Fuck.

>46 JGL53: The Jews being polite or impolite to the Nazis would make no difference. You know that is not what the discussion is about. It's about discussions between equals (in this country), assuming you consider all citizens "equal' despite their disparate views. One can have repulsive views but they still have the same vote as everyone else. Being polite but forceful and clear at the same time has potential value.

Also, why everyone is blaming President Obama and not talking about Congress puzzles me. The money goes to Congress far more than to the President.

Blaming President Obama is what certain people do in this country.

cf http://loweringthebar.net/2016/10/congress-blames-veto.html

>48 BruceCoulson: Yes, that was terribly amazing. And sad. I would have hoped that that would have been beyond the bar, but apparently no, members of Congress can blame Obama for something that is clearly and directly their responsibility. Is there anyone that this actually makes them look good to?

I agree. Nobody really understands the duties of a president and thinks that he needs to please every single person. That he is a magic man that can wave a magic finger and every problem be fixed in an instant. People who blame Obama don't get that a lot of problems is in the Congress and the Judicial system. Congress doesn't do anything except fight all the time and never solve anything. Anytime Obama tries to make something happen, there is always resistance and the idea that everything Obama suggest will fail instead of actually listening.

It's hilarious how Trump keeps trying to blame Clinton because she's been in and around gov't for the last 40 years and hasn't fixed all the problems yet. The guy has no clue how gov't really works. I believe he really thinks that if he became President that he could be a dictator and push whatever he wanted through.

It's really very clear who the Clintons and Obamas have most pleased and how and why they have done so. Since the picture is so disgraceful, their apologists are obliged to dismiss critics as whiners and malcontents.

The people I most despise are these apologists.

This is one of the most affecting pieces I've seen on this political campaign so far. I follow the poster pretty regularly, and I've never seen her like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQFWT8-RRQA

Months ago I suggested that the pathological unwillingness among liberals to acknowledge Clinton's faults was a sign of Stockholm syndrome. I haven't revised my position.

> 53

HRC approval/disapproval ratio is in the negative. This means that a good many "liberals" do not like her - otherwise you wouldn't have a 50+ disapproval for her.

Yet I suspect she will win this race handily. This means that a lot of people who dislike her will vote for her simply because they are utterly appalled at trump. It is the lesser of evils thingie.

After she is elected and we have dodged the incredibly horrifying trump bullet THEN all will be free to criticize the hell out of her and her administration if she and it are not up to the "liberal" par that is desired.

This is not rocket science. Am I telling you something you did not know, davidgn? Are you able to grok the obvious which I am pointing out here?

The point is that people who promote trump as less evil than HRC are fucked in the head. I am convinced of that beyond all doubt. That is my conviction and I am unanimous in that.

>53 davidgn: Months ago I suggested that the pathological unwillingness among liberals to acknowledge Clinton's faults was a sign of Stockholm syndrome. I haven't revised my position.

The refusal among the far left to accept the political system in existence is probably because they had overbearing fathers causing them to reject authority in adulthood. Oh, we can play this pseudopsychology all day long!

In reality, people in arguments are not likely to admit their position's problems, and that goes double for cultural-wide arguments. (That's not Stockholm syndrome.) It's likely that people who don't see her faults the way you do simply see things differently than you do.