I’ll share presidential candidate and classified data dumper Hillary Clinton’s thoughts about gun control in a ‘mo. First, let me draw your attention to a comment she made when confronted by representatives of Black Lives Matter, who pressed Ms. Clinton on her husband’s contribution to “mass incarceration.” “Look, I don’t believe you change hearts,” she proclaimed. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.” Kinda spooky eh? Normally, liberals appeal to the heart, not the head. My translation . . .
Screw what you believe in your heart. I know what’s right. I will manipulate the levers of government to get it done. I will manipulate the way government works to get it done. Regardless of what citizens believe in their hearts. Gun-clinging rednecks that they are.
If I’m right, Clinton’s the Machiavellian monster that many believe her to be. Which would make her the greatest threat to Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms since the last greatest threat to Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Obama’s post-Newtown anti-gun jihad? Anyway . . .
Here’s Hillary’s take on gun control [via nationaljournal.com]:
Asked what she would do to strengthen gun-control laws across the country, Clinton said the current situation is “way out of balance” and that she is “not backing off of this fight,” mentioning the shooting in Charleston that killed nine black churchgoers. “I don’t see any conflict between the legitimate protection of Second Amendment rights and protecting people from gun violence from people who should never have guns in the first place,” she said.
On another question, about “Stand Your Ground” laws around the country, Clinton said she thought many of those laws need to be “rewritten” and that reaching for a gun has become a “knee-jerk reaction.”
“Yes, there is a role in extreme situations to defend yourself and defend your home, but unfortunately what we’ve seen too much of in the last few years is a spate of people who have reached for a gun before they really figured out what was going on,” she said. “They’ve been much too eager to use that gun. We’ve seen it with policing and we’ve seen it with civilians.”
There’s a lot there not to like. My [least] favorite bit: Stand Your Ground laws make reaching for a gun a “knee-jerk” reaction. See how that ties-in with her comment putting laws above “the heart”? It’s official: you can get really worried now. Again. Still.
I knew she was a batshit crazy scary bitch way back when her hubby was running for president the first time. And she has done nothing since then to change my mind.
She has all of her husband’s ambition with none of her husband’s humility.
Or her husband’s ability. Not that I was a fan of Slick Willie.
Luckiest president ever….was sitting in the big chair during the internet gold rush.
this old hag havin we heard enough from the clinton family? I liked it is specially when bill clinton when he was president got a blowjob from monica lewinsky, and then made a statement I did not have sexual relations with this lady. And then we find out he didn’t. It’s 1 thing 4 a husband did she dont is wife in the general populous, it’s totally another win the most powerful man in the world does it you’re supposed to leave by sample andy example the clinton’s both set is we don’t really give a shit about people in general, only care about our own ideas and interest. Hillary clinton is an old hag, if she get selected I will leave the country, canada is looking better everyday. Or argentina.
FLAME DELETED
FLAME DELETED
Wow, really? I’m not sure how pointing out that the guy’s voice recognition software is on the fritz (which is clearly the case if you read his post – “andy example” instead of “and the example”, etc) is a “flame”, but hey, it’s your website…
FLAME DELETED
There’s a hair-trigger on “FLAME DELETED” these days…
*sigh*
My comment constituted a flame? What a joke, especially since the original comment was allowed to remain.
@David: Yeah, Cananda, where the gun restrictions are worse than here and no 2nd Amendment. Not sure about Argentina but betting they are not much better.
The fact that anyone would ever vote for her is a friggin disgrace.
Obama was elected solely because of half of his racial make up, and Hillary will because she is a woman.
The best case scenario is to vote for Hillary so America can hit the reset button on its current Oligarchical government.
A better article would be on what caliber to stop a Robot, that the military is developing.
Scariest part right here:
“I know what’s right. “
She didn’t say that, RF did in his translation.
I think RF’s translation is spot on. It is consistent with every utterance and action of every gun-grabber that I have ever heard, read, or conversed.
In case anyone missed it, here it is again … the actual mindset of all politicians, government bureaucrats, and academicians who are gun-grabbers:
Keep doubling down on that gun control girlfriend. It does nothing but hurt your chances and damage your party. Win, win.
Hillary can’t protect herself (or us) from her own husband. No one can protect you against guns.
It must be great to live in a world where you can substitute the reality in your head for the reality that actually exists.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” -Adam Savage
@Andrew Lias: Yes but they do have pills for that. Sometimes the fantasy gets in the way of life. A good example is the guy that stabbed Morgan Freeman’s granddaughter to get the devils or demons out of her. He seemed to be living in an imaginary world of his own.
It will take an absolutely tectonic shift in American politics for Sen. Clinton to lose the election. It is possible, but I would not bet against her. The only way we get her out of office is to pile on an incredible amount of pressure for her right now, prior to the nomination. The media has to see an overwhelming negative story with Sen. Clinton, and the hunger of the American public to digest that story. Be really hungry. And loud.
Hillary for Prison 2016
http://hillaryforprison.net/
Agreed. I think we will have to win and hold Congress and stall her out for 8 years if possible.
I personally think BHO will be our next dictator in chief , CRISIS MODE . I hope my gut is wrong on this but it has churned for about six years now and it keeps leading me back to CRISIS MODE , hold all elections . This nation is obviously , to me , upside down . I will not say anything isn’t possible anymore . I will continue to go by my gut because it is almost always right but hope that it’s off .
Wow very refreshing to see somebody else who feels like this, exactly what I’ve been thinking for the last couple of years. He is doing his best to ruin this economy by running up the debt to unsustainable levels that could lead to the collapse of the dollar and of mayhem will follow he will declare Marshall law and it will doomsday for us all. I breathed a sigh of relief when I read he is trying to raise $1 Billion for his library but then I thought it’s all part of the ruse.
So either you and I are very instinctive or paranoid.
RedSox ,
He has no idea or plan to become the last days anti-Christ , it will just happen .
I have talked to a LOT of people who believe as I do, that BO does not intend to leave office, ever. What method he uses to achieve that end, well, I’ve heard several.
I was in the military when Nixon was forced out. His final days in office were scary. We were put on alert constantly. Barracks talk was that he was going to try and stay in office with the militaries help.
You have to remember that Nixon was very popular with us. He had gotten that mess in VN ended and he had done good things for us.
I did not hob nob with the officers but we enlisted types took the conversation to the point that if we were deployed in American cities at his orders we were going over the hill.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and he left peacefully. I don’t know what kind of pull barry has with the military. But if he intends to become king barry he’ll need them.
There is absolutely zero chance for President Obama to stay in office past this term.
I remember all the liberal idiots claiming the exact same thing about Bush in the declining years of his second term. And the conservative idiots who said the same thing about Clinton before that.
Guys, you have to understand one thing: the president is mostly a figurehead. The strings are pulled from behind the curtain by powerful interests, and they don’t give two shits about who is in the Oval Office, because anyone who gets that far is completely under their thumb. This ain’t Jefferson’s America anymore. So there’s no way they’re going to allow some wildcard shit like “suspended elections under martial law” and let a president sit beyond his term. The chaos that would unleash is bad for business, and above all, the people I’m talking about are interested in making money and preserving their positions of privilege and power. They have no need for a “President for life”, because the next guy will be just as controllable and amenable to their interests (no matter what letter is in the parentheses after his name).
They’ll never pass Affordable Healthcare Act through congress because it was an unconstitutionally written law being conceived and written by the Senate . Did it .
They’ll never allow it to stand under scrutiny of the Supreme Court . Did it .
They’ll never kill the coal industry . Did it .
On and on and on , seems to me , they’re doing what ever the h__l they want to do .
This is not Jefferson’s America ( You said it )
Imagine a NATIONAL KATRINA , nuclear attack NYC or L.A, EMT attack , Yellowstone eruption , 9.0 earthquake in the subduction zone off the west coast , asteroid impact , economic meltdown , etc..
Do you really think there would be enough people wanting to participate in an election if these were occurring in November 2016 ?
I really hope my gut is off this time and everything just starts moving little slower so we can corral this shit all in . I really hope I’m wrong because if I’m right , then SWHTF >
Everyone said that in 2008, too. Yet, all it took was a no-name empty suit to derail her campaign. So much for the Super Delegates and the fait accompli. She couldn’t even win Iowa then. Heck, even presidential hopeless Bernie Sanders is boxing her ears, having risen from 3% to 25%, most of that support having been swiped straight from Hillary.
In her Senate career, she had to carpetbag her way to a safe seat in New York to snatch a seat. Democrats can win in Arkansas, but they have to work hard and earn it. Hillary just isn’t likable, isn’t a good campaigner, and has serious difficulty in contested elections. She knew that, so fled Arkansas.
Some will vote for whomever the Dem is, of course, but you can’t win the White House on core supporters alone. You need to win over the mindless, muddled so-called moderates, and discourage the other side’s core supporters into staying home.
Unfortunately, the GOP primaries these last two cycles have nominated mealy mouthed pseudo-conservatives who’ve alienated their own core supporters into disaffection and handed the contests to the Dems. So it’s possible she could win. I’m just saying it’s not preordained; that the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Vote.
JWT, if the HildaBeast skates for the FELONY of having destroyed classified data on her personal server the USA has real problems.
Fortunately, Obama has a visceral hatred of both Clintons.
Some believe O is going to let this drag on for the next year.
Then Fauxahauntes (fake Indian princess) Elizabeth Warren will step up and run for president.
Warren will be tough to beat in Nov. 2016.
Sanders vs. Trump? Ouch.
Not Trump.
I’d rather see a Fiorina – Carson ticket.
You can imagine the jokes about re-naming 1600 Penn.Ave. into “The Trump House”.
Here’s the weird thing – I heard today polls show Trump is just 6 points behind Hillary if the election were held tomorrow.
Yikes. I fear most another Ross Perot scenario handing the Dems the presidency…
I suspect the biggest threat to the Right as far as Hillary winning is that Donald Trump goes Independent and steals enough votes away from the Right. If that happens the backup will be to try to load Congress with Right Wingers to stall out any of her initiatives.
“Balance” is a made up term of early 20th century progressive law professors. All the “balancing test” BS was invented to give more power to judges to “interpret” the Constitution.
i wouldn’t worry about her too much…shes pretty much done after this emailgate …bring on crazy uncle joe biden….
That would be fun. Bumblin’ Biden in office would be great. He would be so inept that we wouldn’t have to hardly fight him, just let him stumble around and make a fool of himself.
WOW !
Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump debates .
This has the potential of surpassing the popularity of ‘ Walking Dead ‘
“Talking dumb” beats “walking dead”
“The science is clear.”, “The science is settled.”, “There is no debate about the science of vaccines.” Would anything this woman says surprise a critically thinking, freedom respecting individual?
Suppose for a moment, Hillary was elected, and an intruder got into the secure part of the White House. Would she have her protective detail flee, or “stand their ground” and “reach for a gun”? Of course, when it’s just YOUR life in danger and not her own, she recommends the opposite approach. The Clintons really are fond of elitist hipocracy.
She wouldn’t need the secret service in that situation, just take off the pantsuit and they would turn to stone.
Hillary Clinton has is as likely to be taking the Oath of Office from a federal penitentiary as she is of being elected in the first place.
But, I agree with the top-line: gun laws are, in fact, way out of balance; they constrain the law-abiding, while doing nothing to constrain criminals. No law can keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.
Does Madame Benghazi have any evidence or statistics of citizens asserting stand-your-ground laws, while otherwise using unjustified deadly force?
Sen. Clinton is extremely adept at the double speak. I find myself often agreeing with her words, all the while completely disagreeing with her point. The gun laws “way out of balance” being an example.
It is so because “Madamme Benghazi” says it’s so.
“The science is clear”!
Now where’s that cloth so she can take another swipe at wiping her server…oh, wait…too late!
“The science is clear!” sums up her demagoguery.
Her morons-in-waiting have continuously pushed the Zimmerman case as a demonstration of “stand your ground” being out of control, although it was never mentioned anywhere except by her and her subservient press corps, that was clearly not anything like stand your ground. IOW, she could come up with hundreds of examples of abuse of that concept, they just would not be real.
And she will receive about half the votes if nominated. So vote!
Her position on guns doesn’t matter because she is going to be indicted. Soon. She will be under charged and never get convicted but it will end her run. Even the liberal media and pundits have turned against her as they have realized that using an email provider with a personal server setup in a bathroom closet to conduct business as the Secretary of State is indefensible. Example here from MSNBC from this AM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhwVtjgFzlg
Even more intriguing. If you watch this interview, Mr. Fournier talks about the real possibility of a “negative disruptor” coming into play because multiple generations of people are fed up with being lied to. Wow.
Think for a minute, here. If she is indicted, loses or quits her run, and then charges are dropped or she is found not guilty, then in 2020 Republicans would be smart to save their time and money and just not run for reelection, it will be a coronation, after 4 years of proclamations of the final proof that she is the totally innocent victim of a vast, right wing conspiracy. She has to be found guilty, even if she is never imprisoned, which would allow Republicans to point out her elitist status, anyone else would be in prison, and she is done for eternity.
The Clintons have been under formal investigation many times, for crimes at least as serious, if not more so, than the current ones. She isn’t scared of them at all, knowing it’s probably the only thing keeping her relevant right now. When was the last time an investigation really hurt a Clinton?
I believe this will be particularly acute since more and more people are now starting to appreciate the magnitude of data losses to hackers. Had this happened 12 years ago, it wouldn’t mean very much. In this day and age, I believe it is significant to many people.
This one is different. The previous investigations were not National Security related and certainly didn’t involve violations of the Espionage Act. Arguably, the most serious investigation was on “Filegate” as it involved some pretty significant leaks of high level officials private background information. Filegate embarrassed the FBI because it demonstrated a major lapse in their competence and fidelity. If you don’t recall, the FBI seriously got their wings clipped and were removed from the investigation by the AG, Reno. In fact, the Special Investigator probed the FBI pretty heavily as I recall. Crimes were committed and people resigned but It really was just a bunch of political hacks building a hit list but no one could prove the Clintons were involved.
A small part of me wonders if the FBI hasn’t gone rogue here and is acting independently because they have had enough of the Clintons. In any case, I truly believe she is done. She won’t be back in 2020 either. Amazing, considering I thought she was going to be our next president.
I recall clearly the day after the last presidential election hearing a TV newscaster(not sure which station or newscaster) say that polls indicated Hillary Clinton as a favorite for the 2016 White House. Seemed pretty amazing considering the election was 4 years away, and pretty sure she had not formally announced her run, struck me as some predictive programming. It will take something huge to unseat her, as she seems to have been the establishment favorite.
Personally, I think Hillary is running interference for some dark horse candidate that is going to come out of nowhere a few months before the election. Meanwhile, everyone is pounding on Hillary who will quietly bow out at the last minute leaving a sparkling clean primary winner to run for the Oval Office in 2016.
Either that or her handlers have forced her to run and she wants no part of it … so she is sandbagging.
Is very possible. I have similar thoughts on Trump and his campaign.
Who is pounding on Hillary? Jared? Perverted mofo.
Maggie Obriens still open?
“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts . . . I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”
I can see what Hillary is saying here; arguably, she is probably – on balance – quite right. By “you” I take her to refer to the efficacy of governments. As in:
‘Look, I don’t believe [governments] change hearts . . . I believe [governments] change laws, [governments] change allocation of resources, [governments] change the way systems operate.’
Let’s put this notion to the test: Did the US Federal government change hearts when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation? When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I would argue that the institution of slavery became doomed as American society (little influenced by a small Federal government) became increasingly squeamish about its morality. Segregation and denial of Black suffrage became doomed as American society became squeamish about these practices. The Federal government’s power was limited in each case to altering law, resources and systems.
Printing more food stamps will not have a positive impact on hearts; it will keep Progressives in power. This is the policy.
The criminal justice system is the tool where allocating resources and changing operations can have a prompt impact on saving Black lives. A crime-prone Black youth in prison is safe from both excessive force by police (minor) and homicide by another crime-prone Black youth. Lock-up a violent dealer and he won’t kill his rivals or past-due accounts-receivable. Lock-up a consumer and he can’t be victimized by rival gangs or his dealer. The homicide rate is the major metric. Non-deadly violent crime rates are important minor metrics. The incarceration rate is something that can be spun.
#BlackLivesMatter is focusing on the deaths of Blacks resulting from (excessive) force by police. The only way to reduce this minor metric is to make Black precincts No-Go zones for police. Yet, this very solution is incredibly counter-productive as is aptly demonstrated by Baltimore. The number of Blacks killed by police is trivial compared to the number killed by Black criminals. No-Go zones are a clear prescription for soaring Black homicides and other violent crime metrics.
Hillary’s policy direction is clear-cut. Double and redouble prison space until the violent crime rates drop to sustainable levels. Maintain the war-on-drugs because Blacks, Progressives and Conservatives are all against legalization. Keep Black youths in prison where they can’t commit crimes and can’t be killed by other Blacks. Fine-tune the plea-bargaining and sentencing to cater to Progressive tastes as to what “ought” to be socially optimal. Blame guns, knowing full-well that the last gun “controlled” will be taken from the cold dead hand of a Black youth.
Hillary is quite right; and, her policy path is obvious. #BlackLivesMatter advocates really ought to analyze her policy options and decide whether they agree with (what must be) her prescription. These advocates can get what they are asking for (lower numbers of Blacks killed by police) but only at the price of soaring Black homicides and Black victims of other violent crimes. Hillary can’t bury or spin FBI stats on Black crime victims – when these become high enough even Blacks and Progressives will elect a Rudy Giuliani. Hillary can spin the incarceration rate because an incarcerated-Black is still alive. And, Black LIFE is the only thing that matters.
“A crime-prone Black youth in prison is safe from both excessive force by police (minor) and homicide by another crime-prone Black youth”
Not sure if serious…
In answer to your question, I do NOT regard prison as a safe place for a prisoner to live. It is – in FACT – a very dangerous place. Moreover, as a policy matter, the choice of moving a person:
– from a dangerous place where he is responsible for his own safety;
– to a dangerous place where society (via government) assumes responsibility for his safety
is an agonizing decision. Only if prison really IS MUCH safer than the inner-city is it morally responsible to choose prison over the inner-city.
However, the reality of the safety and welfare of a Black youth is really quite IRRELEVANT to the political forces in play. I have described the relevant considerations as I see them. Hillary will be quite willing to move a Black youth from the inner-city to a prison with NO regard to whether he really is safer in one place or the other. If the prisoner is in the hands of a government prison she will assume that he will be safe.
The objective is to achieve power. Manipulating the metrics toward that objective is the ONLY tool at her disposal. Segregating the violent criminals in prison and maintaining the war on drugs are tools within her control.
I hope you find my answer responsive to your question.
That is all true. But that simply makes Hillary the same as every other candidate on both sides save Rand Paul. Criminal justice reform did not get mentioned in either party debate.
On that issue, the “conservatives” are indistinguishable from the “progressives”.
‘On that issue, the “conservatives” are indistinguishable from the “progressives”.’
All in all, I agree with you. Conservatives are more than willing to build prisons and lock-up criminals to attempt immediate impact on crime rates. I could not encourage the #BlackLivesMatter advocates to prefer one party over the other as respects their primary goal of reducing the deaths of young blacks at the hand of police.
Nevertheless, I think that conservatives, and especially libertarians, are apt to take a more nuanced view of public policy. Neither conservatives nor libertarians have a lot of patience for excessive force by police. Both the conservatives and libertarians can live with the current rate of police killing Blacks in arrest situations; but, in each case, they will be critical.
Democrats won’t be critical. A Black death at the hands of the police is nearly a political issue to be spun; Progressives don’t care that a Black person died.
If #BlackLivesMatter advocates care exclusively about the deaths of Blacks at the hand of police they will only get satisfaction – in the way of pandering, not action – from Democrats.
MDS, not sure I can agree about criminal justice reform, I think it would work much better if we simply legalize all drugs. OTOH, I don’t recall anybody mentioning that, either.
I am open minded about legalizing all drugs. Doing so would change so many aspects of life both in America and in Mexico that the detailed results are totally unpredictable. The net result might be positive; but, we can’t rule-out that it might be negative.
Here, on the drug issue, I depart from a principled position: I find no warrant in the Constitution for Federal drug control. As a consequence, whether the net result from de-regulating drugs would be positive or negative, I have to presume a decided preference for liberty under our existing Constitution. Even if the outcome were net worse, that condition is – at least – Constitutional.
Regardless of how you or I or someone else might feel about drug control, the problem remains political in character. Given the diverse constituencies who demand that the war-on-drugs continue, the war will go on and on and on.
The question you and I (and other like-minded) face is how to advance the cause?
It looks to me like the war-on-pot is failing badly in public popular support. Many States have legalized medical pot and a couple have legalized recreational-pot. The Feds have largely acquiesced. What we are looking at here is a SUCCESSFUL implementation of NULLIFICATION! This is EXTRAORDINARY!! Nothing short of a peaceful Revolution II.
The scientific case for the medical damage caused by pot is eroding in the public mind. Conversely, the inevitability of young people using pot is gradually becoming an accepted fact. It’s increasingly difficult for a voter to continue to insist on using the criminal justice system to damage – destroy the lives of individuals based only on a believe that pot is a “bad” thing to do – equivalent to tobacco or alcohol.
As the trend toward legalization of pot continues – while other drugs remain prohibited – we will see what the outcomes will prove to be. Imagine an America where pot is virtually legal in 40 States and still persecuted in only 11 (counting DC as a State). (That would be something like having 40 States recognizing a Right-to-Carry and 11 hold-outs.)
America would then have a basis to decide whether it wishes to resurrect pot-control; or, carry-on living in a Post-Pot-Prohibition era. By then, the political landscape for all other drugs would have changed radically. Designer drugs would have grown to be a much more severe problem; whereupon, the feasibility of any approach to drug-control would become dubious. (Has anyone thought of what the 80% receiver does to gun control?)
Nullification as a part of American political Constitutionalism would have become acknowledged as a “thing”, not a historical abstraction.
“Neither conservatives nor libertarians have a lot of patience for excessive force by police”
Eh? The drug war was brainchild of Nixon’s DOJ. He figured he can win the conservative vote by having cops beat and murder hippies. Radley Balko documents this in his book on police militarization.
Funny enough the drug war now enjoys bipartisan support, from the puritan preachers on the right to the power-mad statists on the left.
Alas, you are correct.
Conservatives usually decry the damage drugs do and resort to government to use force to remove the problem.
The force conservatives EXPECT government to use is: assertion of authority; strong-arm; arrest and incarceration.
Should the offender use deadly force in response to these measured, escalating forces, conservatives accept that the police will have to break some eggs to create their improved conservative society.
But conservatives are naive. Reality just doesn’t happen that way. We know how reality unfolds because we read about it and remember.
I do think that conservatives – as well as libertarians – would recoil at the scene of No-Knock raids where children are terrified or injured because the police have a drug warrant to execute. Unlike the libertarians, the conservatives are very slow to recognize the extent of the problem.
What is particularly appalling is that conservatives are unwilling to recognize wrong-address errors in No-Knock raids. If the police can terrify the occupants of #12 Martin Luther King Drive when they have a warrant for #21 Martin Luther King Drive then they can also terrify the occupants of #21 King Drive on the other side of the tracks.
Given the choice, I would rather make my appeal to the 4A to a conservative rather than a Progressive. The Progressive would find absolutely nothing wrong with breaking down the door at #21 King Drive and to seek a warrant on #21 Martin Luther King Drive as a valid pretext would be entirely appropriate.
No black person should ever consider casting a vote for anyone who believes Margaret Sanger was anything but a racist humanist .
Please do a quick Google search .
Google ‘ Margaret Sanger speaks to the KKK ‘ .
Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler .
George Bernard Shaw , Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler .
Finally , Adolf Hitler and Islam .
Well, that’s true, but only so if the black reader of history actually read the relevant texts and took them to heart.
I don’t immediately see how your observation – however correct – speaks to the issue of my post to which you respond.
Well , you spoke of the fact that Hillary spoke before the organization ‘ Black Lives Matter ‘ and Hillary is a major supporter of Margaret Sanger and to Margaret Sanger , black lives did not matter and to her black lives should perhaps be extinguished .
Did I clear it up for you ?
Oh, yes; thank you very much.
All too often I fail at connecting dots – sometimes even when they are both in front of me.
I think it goes without saying that very few politicians care very much about their constituents except those who matter critically in supplying campaign contributions and voting blocks.
Pro-Choice is the knee-jerk Progressive policy. So, of course, Hillary will pander to Planned Parenthood. That means speaking well of it’s founding mothers. Black voters would never be expected to read the history of Sanger’s eugenic policies; so, Hillary didn’t have to worry much about being called to account for her remarks about Sanger.
Now, Dr. Carson is connecting those dots. He might attract enough attention from the Black community to register the connection between Planned Parenthood and Sanger and eugenics. Even so, planting that seed of doubt in the minds of a constituency habituated to group-think is not sufficient. It needs to be nurtured; even then, it need not flourish as a thread of doubt.
The Democrat party owns the Black vote for all practical purposes. The GOP has done nothing whatsoever to attempt to create a fissure in that party loyalty.
What the GOP is selling would be great for the Black community if only the GOP packaged their case correctly. E.g., the GOP ought to make a strong pitch for supporting Vouchers. In and of itself, that would NOT be sufficient to crack Democrat voter ownership of the Black vote. However, it would compel Black parents to begin to question their Democrat legislators to justify their opposition to Vouchers. That would be a fissure.
Some Black parents would become one-issue-voters. (Funny, that phrase has a familiar ring to it. Where have I heard it before?) It might become no-longer-taboo for Blacks to discuss the Voucher system. Republicans running on a promise to promote Vouchers might garner some Black votes. Eventually, the GOP could be on-its-way to creating a crack.
When Bill Clinton said,”I did not have sexual relations with that women,” I think he was talking about Hillary.
and I can understand that. It would be very difficult to become aroused looking at that face.
Wow. Love it
I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils… but now I will.
not picking on you, but how’s that voting for evil working out?
Not well- but that is because there are way too many low character voters choosing the greater of two evils.
McCain was/is a jackass, Romney is weak-sauce, both are INFINITELY superior to the POS that was elected.
The lesser of two-evils approach sucks, but it’s the reality we often face. Like if you give me a choice between a broken finger or a broken neck. I don’t like it, but I’ll choose the temporary pain of the finger, I can recover from that. The broken neck? Not sure we as a nation can or will recover from the last 6+yrs…I am confident we won’t survive another Anti-American, Progressive administration.
Actually , Barry was the wake up call we ALL needed . The Dems needed Barry to ‘ come out ‘ . The Repubs needed Barry to show them how far the country had already swung .
George H. Bush , George W. Bush , Jeb Bush , John McCain , Romney and Bob Dole were all Progressive Rebubs and would have steered us down the same road but with a slower more deceptive speed .
All freedom lovers should be fully awake after a term and a half of Barry O. and be thankful he was there to light the lamp as it were to light our way out of the darkness that is progressivism .
My thinking has long been governed by the policy of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Of late, I have reconsidered.
As an important aside, I still think voting for the lesser of 2 evils still applies to the office of President. Because the President has so much power – for EVIL – the consequences of enduring a really bad President are too horrific. (Witness Obama vs. Romney or even McCain). Just the power to nominate SCOTUS justices who serve for life is awesome.
Now, to the main point. Congress is where most of the power is concentrated. And, Congress no longer works correctly. The Republicans are no better than Democrat-Lite. The most serious aspect is that the power in each chamber of Congress is lodged exclusively in the “leadership”; i.e., the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader.
Freshmen and sophomore Congressmen are compelled to go-alone in order to get-along. By the time they become juniors or seniors they are consumed into the system.
For the foreseeable future the Democrats are beyond reform. So, our last hope is to invoke a “come-to-Jesus” moment in the GOP. That can ONLY occur by threatening the GOP that we will strip them of their power if they do not repent. Fortunately, executing that threat is remarkably feasible.
I’ll use the Senate for facility of numbers. There are only 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. The Republicans hold the majority by just 4 seats; lose those 4 and power hangs in the balance. In the long run it is not hard to threaten the GOP with the loss of its slim majority.
Conservatives and libertarians must tell the GOP that we will deny them a majority in each chamber if they continue to run RINOs. We will “primary” every vulnerable RINO. (Most RINOs will be too well entrenched to beat in the primary.) Whenever we fail to get a conservative/libertarian nominated we will vote for the DEMOCRAT. I.e., we will pursue a scorched-earth GREATER-of-2-evils strategy.
My proposal takes guts. Let’s look at politics very cynically. The Democrats are taking America to hell in a hand basket. If thats where we are bound, it’s better that America puts the peddle to the metal and arrive sooner vs. later. America might wake-up and reverse course if the fall is rapid enough. The sooner America reverses course the more resources will survive to climb back to greatness. If we continue down slowly, like a frog, to bask in the warm water we won’t notice when it’s boiling.
While the Democrats are in power the GOP will be power-LESS. The GOP will have to decide whether to to hang onto power by responding to their conservative and libertarian constituents’ requirements; or, give-up all power and hope of future power to their Democrat competitors.
If we can muster the courage to make good on the threat to choose the GREATER-of-2-evils the GOP leadership has no viable choice but to repent.
Regardless of the practical outcome, I will not vote for evil. I encourage everyone to do the same.
+1. Voting for evil only has 1 result.
So, you basically don’t vote?
No, I “basically” do vote.
@ int19h
So you believe in only 2 parties?
Int19h only believes what his TV tells him.
Hillary’s only leverage is she knows where Obama was the night of the Benghazi attack. Of course, people wonder where Reggie Love was as well since he checked out by secret service records next morning. Just saying.
” Of course, people wonder where Reggie Love was as well since he checked out by secret service records next morning. Just saying.”
Hold on a sec here…
Are you suggesting Reggie Love was ‘on the down-low’ with Obama or was he tappin’ the HildaBeast?
*shudder*
I may need to resume inhaling ‘Maker’s Mark’ in mass quantities…
(I liked it better than Jack…)
🙂
It may all be a moot point, as I foresee the FBI coming to arrest her within 2 months.
Oh PLEASEEEE let it happen.
“they’ re coming to take her away ha ha, they’ re coming to take her away…. they’re coming to take her away ha ha, ho ho, hee hee, they’re coming to take her away”
( I believe the credit goes to DR.D Mento)
I disliked her husband because of his politics but I really hate Hillary for what she is and what
she stands for. She was fired from her first government job as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation because she was a liar:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss
She hasn’t changed any in the past 40+ years.
“She was fired from her first government job as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation because she was a liar:”
Well now.
That’s an interesting subject to bring up in the debates or a blistering attack ad…
*snicker*
“Way Out of Balance” well, not in the way she means it. Safety equipment being made expensive by placing a $200 tax on it and requiring special government permission to purchase it is something only an idiot could support. We need to remove the National Firearms Act of 1934. How is that for balance?
I’ve still got a bad feeling that she’s going to be the next President, if only because of the people who think that voting for President is the same as voting for an American Idol contestant. Should that happen, I see a huge rush on guns, ammo, and accessories the day after.
Beat the rush, shop now.
Think of it like this:
– if the Democrat candidate wins then there will be a rush on guns; at least short term;
– if the Democrat candidate wins then there will be long-term growth in gun sales.
Arguably, to buy the shares of gun manufacturers and retailers should be a safe investment whichever way the election goes.
Two things:
1) This should surprise nobody, especially if she is appealing to the base
2) The thing that nobody is talking about, if a Democrats gets into office, they will pick one if not two hard left liberal judges to go to the SCOTUS and hundreds of left liberal judges for the other federal courts
Voting for Hillary or any democrat or simply not voting on principle means our gun rights loose.
Far too many people are busy being mad and shouting into the echo chamber versus getting involved and that scares me more than anything that Hillary has to say.
This is a great point and should be considered with utmost importance . If a repub gets in like a Jeb Bush we will be no better off . All progressives will nominate a ‘ Kennedy ‘ and by-by Republic . We need Ted Cruz , Period .
” . . . like a Jeb Bush we will be no better off . . . . . We need Ted Cruz , Period .”
If an establishment GOPer like Bush is nominated and elected then you are absolutely correct. We need to wrest control from the establishment.
However, it does NOT follow that Cruz is the sole candidate who could achieve that result.
Mind you, I don’t oppose Cruz. Nor do I prefer another candidate over Cruz.
Cruz isn’t rising in the polls – albeit I hasten to add that it remains very early in the schedule.
We have to consider electability as equally important as correctness on issues. We must find the most-electable alternative who will not play footsie with the establishment. Bush clearly WILL play footsie with the establishment. Likely one or another of the other candidates would do so as well.
For example, Trump is the leading candidate. But, we have to apply the two acid tests: Could he win the General election? Might he play footsie with the establishment? Should he fail either of these two tests, we ought to be looking over all the other candidates.
Could Carlie Fiorina win? Might she play footsie with the establishment?
Could Cruz win? Might he play footsie with the establishment?
On this board we probably can find a lot of fondness for Cruz on the issues; yet, that doesn’t mean he can win any more than any alignment with any of the other candidates means they could win.
Let’s back Cruz by all means and see if he picks-up support. He may; but, if he does NOT pick-up support then we have to see who we could back who survives the 2-part acid test.
And yet no matter what anyone says, certain gun owners will vote for the woman given a chance.
Here’s a scary idea,
Clinton for president.
Feinstein for vice president!
Wesley Clark is more likely. And a lot scarier.
Dear Hillary. Bite me. Yours truly, Paul.
Maybe the Red Queen hasn’t gotten the memo:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an ‘interest-balancing’ approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)
We don’t need to change any laws, just enforce the ones on the books, you know like perjury, unauthorized dissemination of classified information, influence peddling, arming terrorists, crimes against fashion, etc.
I wouldn’t worry too much about her. The progressives have already started backing the socialist party member Big Ben. He will be the one to watch..
Really? Who?
Cops.
“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts,” she proclaimed. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”
AKA “behavioral economics”. Once you grab ’em in the right places, attitudes change mighty quick.
Sorry guys but lots of black lives splatter types have a distinct disconnect when it come to the origins of gun control, serfdom of vast numbers of democrat underclass and the basis of eugenics. They’ll still vote dumbocrat/hildebeast but with little Barry Soetoro enthusiasm. Absent a criminal indictment that is…
Hitlery is way out of balance.
As far as Black Lives Matter goes black lives just do not matter to other blacks both in the hood and the planned parenthood clinic.
Hilary Clinton is viable because millions of gun owners voted for her husband who had concentual adulterous sex and lied about it. To them it was no big deal.
The fact that her husband signed the assault weapons ban, they still voted for him any way for reelection. Because the godless enjoy sticking the finger in the eye of religious people. I remember very well the libertarians who were so happy her husband was not removed from office. You people are not pro gun civil rights. But you are pro adulterous liar politicians.
Yowzza, she friggin’ nuts!
Yes. They are way out of balance. Soviet Jersey is a good example of the problem.
Seems like from what I’ve read, whether one is Democrat, Republican, Independent or other, everybody should be helping Support Bernie Sanders Democratic bid and send Hillary to the moon, retired permanently. He at least seems to be a longtime 2A supporter. Don’t know about his other desires or plans, other than being pegged a socialist Democrat.
I think ( self edited ) HILLARY would stop at nothing to screw Americans any which way she can. Just like the current clown of a thousand faces.
Bernie believes in Universal Gun Control AKA defacto registration as well as the “assault weapon”/normal-cap pistol ban. He is as “pro-gun” as allowing us British/Australian gun laws of Fudd guns only yet with suppressors just as hard if not harder to get.
No thank you.
I had not heard anything about his Universal control /registration ideas and /or limitation thoughts. The “little bit” I read about him, he seemed to be more favorable towards firearms than any other Democrat that I had heard of in general, Especially Hillary. The question might be, if there was a chance of getting stuck with a Democrat, would you want it to be TAKE -Em away Clinton, continuing the Barry plan 2.0 or a possibly (?) a softer fight with Bernie since he maybe has been courted by gun interests.
I’m not saying I like him, just wonder if he might be worlds better than Hillary or as some have conjectured Michelle O, If Obama Justice Dept manages to find DAMMING info about Clinton making her unelectable. Can you say “NEPOTISTIC Advantage” ?
PotG should harbor no delusions about Bernie.
He represents VT, a very liberal State with a very deep and broad support for gun rights. How could he possibly navigate this political environment? His ONLY choice is to be chameleon-like by speaking and voting according to his constituents sympathies. OF COURSE he would have to say some mildly-supportive things about guns and make a few supportive votes for guns.
Bernie’s Progressive supporters will forgive these remarks and votes if they can get a card-carrying socialist in the oval office. They aren’t so dumb as to be suckered into voting against him because of these remarks and votes.
Should Bernie be elected President his days as a VT politician are over. He will not – as did John Quincy Adams – complete a term or two in the White House and then run for a Congressional seat representing VT. The morning after the Presidential election his rhetoric and veto pen will turn virulently anti-gun.
So maybe we should hope for good Ole’ Joe BIDEN to be the Democraps candidate.
He at least says we should by a shotgun and protect ourselves by “Just fire the shotgun through the door”……. maybe a Republican could beat him.
Unfortunately I have not seen anyone truly worth much on the Republican side, They all keep beating each other up so much, whoever gets the nomination will probably be unelectable due to all the bruisings of primary season..
Trump …. whether one likes him or hates him, he is at least becoming the most vocal
( Republican) about his views, policies, thoughts, It is kinda refreshing. He speaks his mind , politically correct or not. I just don’t think he is electable.
If Trump were to decide to run as an Independent, I think we would see a repeat of the “Perot effect”,
which is how Bill Clinton got elected. An Independent will split/ divide the Republican votes not pull Democratic votes, thus giving any Democratic candidate a win……
Anyone that calls themselves a Socialist is someone that wants more government control, not less. So, Bernie casting himself as a pro-gun advocate makes about as much sense as a Progressive Independent.
Spooky indeed!
I am unimpressed with Hillary. And the others.
The thought of Hilary being president should be a wake up call.
If you don’t vote, you get the government you deserve. Didn’t vote? Don’t complain!
Don’t use the excuse that the incumbent is going to win anyway. If enough people vote the opposition may win, or at least scare the incumbent from being complacent.
Years ago at a polling station I was working at in a solid blue ribbon Liberal (conservative) electorate, the incumbent candidate had a big swing against him. It turned out the candidate actually lost his own seat. The candidate was the-then Prime Minister (and extreme hoplophobe) John Howard.
Who knows what may happen but at least try. You might be surprised.
With that speech, she basically said it’s ok to be a dictator.
But with the current POTUS and the Democratic party moving in that direction, it’s not surprising. But it IS disturbing nonetheless.
Instead of “Stand Your Ground” she wants us all to “Turn and Run” or “Curl up in a Ball and Wet Your Pants” . Gads, what is this country coming to. The Leftists want us all to become cowards to protect the Criminal Class.
Comments are closed.