There are only two options, and always only these two options: either The Leader won the game, or the game was rigged against The Leader.
Some of Trump’s aides have mistakenly concluded that there is a third option — that Donald Trump lost the debate because he didn’t prepare for it — and Trump is not happy about it. CNN:
Donald Trump is angry that his aides and advisers have conceded to reporters — largely without attribution — that the Republican nominee struggled in his first presidential debate.
In a conference call with surrogates Wednesday afternoon, Trump aides made clear the Republican nominee is upset that his allies publicly acknowledged they pushed him to change his preparation and tactics before his next bout with Hillary Clinton. And he wants them to stop it immediately.
The message was “not subtle,” a source familiar with the call said.
Trump wants his supporters to make an energetic defense of his performance and refuse to concede that he didn’t nail it.
Yes, but how do we know this call really happened? I’ll tell you. Trump’s people deny it happened. That’s how we know it really happened.
Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller denied the account.
“The entire description of today’s call is completely false and anybody saying otherwise is just making it up,” he said.
Donald Trump’s campaign revolves around the idea that he will look you in the eye and tell you that what you know to be true, is not true. You know he tepidly supported the war in Iraq, maybe quibbling about the timing? No, Trump tells you, I was against it. That “publicist” John Miller who sounds just like Trump, speaks just like Trump, and is obviously Trump? No, Trump tells you, it wasn’t me.
Trump lost the debate and it looks like Hillary is getting a bounce in the polls? No, Trump tells you, I won the debate. Who are you going to believe, the evidence and your own good judgment, or the things that come out of my liehole?
In totalitarian states, there is no option for the game to be rigged against The Leader. The Leader simply always wins — end of story. Now, I’m not saying Trump is a totalitarian leader. I’m not saying that at all!
He’s not in office yet.
But I am saying this, while it’s still legal for me to say so:
If you were conscious at any point in the 1990s you know the answer to that question. But today, perhaps for the first time since the Clintons appeared on the national stage, the Washington Post has actually taken some time to cover Hillary’s obscene history of abusing women who were sexually abused by her husband in the context of something other than studying the “vast right wing conspiracy.”
The article pulls up some insightful quotes from Hillary and from previous associates;
In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, “I mean, I would crucify her.”
Six years later, Bill Clinton acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers.
Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged in a lawsuit that Bill Clinton groped her in a hotel room three years earlier. Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography, “Living History,” that she erred in opposing an early settlement.
Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000. During discovery, Jones’s attorneys found out about White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Her husband denied the relationship, and Hillary Clinton blamed the allegations on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Asked on “Good Morning America” if her husband had been truthful, she said, “I know he has.”
A former White House aide who spoke on the conditions of anonymity to talk about private discussions said Hillary Clinton blamed the scandal on political enemies and insisted that privacy was sacred.
Bill Clinton admitted his untruthfulness in August 1998.
And on and on.
After building a damning case for the “enabler” side of the argument they attempt to achieve some balance in their closing:
“I think she felt that she had committed her life to this guy,” Jim Blair said. “They can debate politics from breakfast until bedtime and never get tired of it. She wanted to spend the rest of her life with him. She loved him. It’s as simple as that.”
The reader is left with two stark choices to explain the behavior. The most charitable one is probably the one that says her career plan was based on sharing Bill Clinton’s bed and she was willing to put up with whatever he did and to savage the battalion of women he had extramarital sex with if they opened their mouths if it advanced her goal. She was able to play noble victim but in the process she condoned the worst possible behavior from her “husband” and modeled the worst sort of male-female relationship for her daughter in the process. The other is that she was actually in love with the guy and every time he swore he wouldn’t cheat again she believed him and defended him and was made a fool and laughingstock by him. The first reason is at least understandable. The latter is nothing short of pathetic.
Trump framed his campaign as a serious White House bid, one that could be his only shot at the presidency, while dismissing Clinton’s run as the most “unserious” campaign in American history.
“We’re gonna make America greater than ever before,” Trump told supporters during his rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “We can do that. But if we don’t win this election, it’ll never happen. I’ll tell you what, we’re never gonna have another shot. This is it. The tables will be turned. Then it’ll be too late.”
There are many things you could say about Hillary Clinton and her campaign, but “unserious” is not one of those things. Her whole life has been about gaining this power, so to say her campaign is unserious is ridiculous.
By contrast, much could be said about a man who refuses to prepare for debates, clowns his way through rallies and interviews, and makes broad, sweeping promises with no plan to follow through.
Trump went on to detail Clinton’s destruction of devices carrying her emails and the reports of one of her aides even using a hammer to destroy evidence.
He also mocked her spotty campaign record and the incident at the 9/11 memorial service, where she buckled and had to be helped to her van.
“You ever see her chart?” he added, likely referring to her campaign schedule. “’She won’t be campaigning today. She won’t be campaigning today.’ This is day in, day out, and I’m campaigning — I’m saying what’s going on? Now in all fairness, she’s spending all of that Wall Street money on commercials, whereas I’m doing it the old-fashioned way, right? We’re doing it the old-fashioned way. So you have six weeks to make every dream you’ve ever dreamed for your country come true. You have one magnificence chance — it’s your last chance — to deliver justice for every forgotten man, woman and child in this country.”
Yes, he seriously incorporated a line from “Napoleon Dynamite,” but he wants us to say, with all we have seen, that it is Clinton’s campaign that is “unserious.”
Vote for me. I’ll make all your wildest dreams come true.
You can’t make this stuff up.
And at this point, I really wish I could vote for Pedro.
Knox county Tea Party leader and Republican congressional candidate in Illinois’ 17th district Patrick Harlan and the Liberty Justice Center scored a major victory in Federal court to stop Democrat efforts to rig the vote in Illinois ahead of the November 8th Presidential election.
During the 2014 lame duck session Illinois Democrat Party boss and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan ushered throw a new same day voter registration law that required counties with populations of more than 100,000 to let people register to vote at all polling places on election day. Of the 102 counties in Illinois many have populations well under that threshold, there are several Illinois counties with populations of less than 10,000. Those counties with lower populations only are required to have a central same day registration site under the law.
This obviously allows Democrats to maximize their voter turn out and vote totals in Chicago and Cook county in favor of Hillary Clinton and congresswoman Tammy Duckworth who is running for the US Senate. As Republican statewide office seekers have known for a long time in Illinois it doesn’t matter how Illinois 101 other counties vote, everything is determined by Chicago and Cook county.
On Tuesday Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan agreed with arguments made by Harlan(whose is facing Rep. Cheri Bustos) and the Liberty Justice Center that the Madigan same day registration law was unconstitutional and disenfranchised the vote of residents of the states many rural counties.
Yehiayan wrote, “while it may be true that the polling place registration option can assist voters in certain populous counties, that option cannot be provided at the expense of lower population counties, thereby decreasing their political representation in Illinois.
Judge Yehiayan continued, “The application of this legislation favors the urban citizen and dilutes the vote of the rural citizen,” wrote Der-Yeghiayan, who added, “Illinois is made up of more than the Chicago metropolitan area and other high population areas. Equality under the law does not end at the city limits.”
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan(Speaker Madigan’s daughter) has said that she will appeal the ruling.
Jacob Huebert of the Liberty Justice Center said in a press release,
Today the court recognized the unfairness of guaranteeing a voting right to some voters but not others. The court ruled that if Illinois is going to have Election Day voter registration at polling places, it should be available statewide – and it should be fair. The government shouldn’t make it harder for people in some parts of the state to register and vote. If Illinois wants to provide Election Day voter registration at the polls, it can do so in a way that’s fair and equal. Six other states, including Illinois’ neighbors Wisconsin and Iowa, give all of their citizens the right to register and vote at their local polling places; they don’t favor voters in some counties over voters in other counties. We’re pleased the court affirmed that everyone has right to the same opportunity to vote.”
As it stands the ruling gives Gov. Bruce Rauner and his allies better chances of picking up a few seats in the state legislature; any GOP gains would end Speaker Madigan’s veto-proof super-majority. The ruling is not likely to help Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who was in the Chicagoland area Wednesday, much as Hillary Clinton is still widely expected to win the heavily blue state, although her margin of victory is probably going to be diminished due to the courts actions. This court order might also be the only thing that can save Sen. Mark Kirk’s bacon.
Congresswoman Bustos has had no comment on the court ruling, although she will probably fire off a bunch of fundraising emails about it; she has more than $2 million in the bank, Patrick Harlan’s campaign is broke(donate here).
Voters across Illinois owe Patrick Harlan and the Liberty Justice Center a huge debt of gratitude for taking a small bite out of the Madigan machine and for making it a little easier to have fair(er) elections this November.
Back when I first began the transition into the managing editor role in 2015, everyone in the business of conservative punditry was still struggling to come to terms with how to deal with Donald Trump. He was capturing the imagination of a lot of the people who read blogs and listen to talk radio, and writing positive things about him was sure to get you a ton of clicks. In a business where money is directly correlated with clicks, that meant a lot.
On the other hand, of course, there was the fact that Trump was obviously not conservative. He was on the record as an avid, extreme pro-choicer before announcing a clearly-calculated and obviously-fake conversion to the pro-life cause in 2012. Many conservatives rationalized this by saying that Romney’s conversion to becoming a pro-lifer was not really much more convincing. But moreover, his ideas on trade were nonsense, he clearly had no ideological moorings of any kind, and he was poorly educated on even the basic issues facing America.
Many people believed that Trump was not a serious threat to win the nomination. If I am being perfectly honest, I was among those people, having vastly overestimated the Republican primary electorate. But still the question presented itself, “what to do about Trump in the meantime?”
A lot of people decided for strategic reasons to treat Trump and his supporters kindly and with legitimacy for business reasons. To me, that was never a serious consideration. I made a decision right away that I would never say anything I did not honestly think just for clicks. And I’ll be honest with you, a huge part of that decision is that I was fortunate to have a good law degree and a solid career to fall back on if things had not worked out here at RedState. I don’t claim any sort of bravery; I had a luxury many in this business do not have: I never had to make a serious decision that involved either compromising my principles or keeping food on my family’s table.
Perhaps contrary to what many might have expected, this website has experienced tremendous, unprecedented growth since that time. We have more than tripled our traffic from last year and more than doubled our traffic from 2012. But that is not a story about me. It is a story about you, the people who read this site and the other contributors who write for this site every day. It is a story about people who have refused to cave to immense peer pressure and political bullying and accept that the tangerine-faced fraud running for President is a man deserving of any thinking American’s vote.
Thank you all for making this the most professionally rewarding year of my life. Thank you for proving to me that a market still exists for actual conservative ideas, as contrasted to the blind Republican Party fandom. Thank you for proving that there are still people who believe in limited government, increased personal freedom, free market capitalism, and genuine devotion to the pro-life cause.
Today will sadly be my last day here at RedState as I move on to The Blaze next week. After more than 11 years on the front page, it feels more like I’m leaving family than I am changing jobs. But I know in my heart that the site is in the right hands with Caleb taking over, and that you good people will be here will still be here reading and writing diaries and posting comments and sometimes sending hilarious hate mail to the contact form.
As I leave, I can only encourage you all to remain strong. Resist the call to let other people do your thinking for you. Continue to use your own brain and your own reasoning power to evaluate whether either of these candidates or neither deserves your vote. Don’t worry about the end result – the last year here at RedState has been living proof for me that if you stick by your principles, more often than not, the rest will take care of itself. And always remember, you don’t owe anyone your vote. They have to earn it.
Make them do it – this election and every election in the future.
I often wish some of the people representing Trump were running for office instead of Trump himself. Here is a great example.
Brunell Donald-Kyei is a Chicago based lawyer and vice-chair of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump. She bravely wades into unfriendly waters while appearing on WGN’s morning news program. Although a local station, WGN is broadcast nationally and Donald’s words have since gone out to a huge swath of the population.
While I am not a Trump supporter, I do not think he’s a racist and I think it is interesting that he has taken careful measures to fill his staff with a cross-section of black political activists. A lot of the black Republican and conservative activists I’ve come up in the industry with have gone on to work for Trump, including his spokeswoman Katrina Pierson. For all the criticism they get, the Trump team has done an incredible job culling some solid minority representatives.
Donald-Kyei is no exception and her passionate defense of why black Americans are fed up with Democrat policies and Obama’s “promises” is almost good enough to make this black girl think twice.
The Democrat party I voted for..over 20 yrs of my life. I voted for Obama when he said when he was gonna bring hope and change and yes we can and no we didn’t. The jobs didn’t come, the better schools didn’t come, the investment in our communities didn’t, come national security ….our borders are open. We’re not safe and we’ve got to stop thinking as black and white and Arab and purple… we’ve to start thinking as Americans and thats what Donald Trump is saying. We’re americans, we’re Americans first. America first.
You’ve got to watch the whole video. If I ever run for President (which would be illegal, because I’m Canadian) I want this woman on my team!
North Carolina has been a hotbed of protests, riots, and media attention since police shot a black man named Keith Scott.
Since his shooting, people have debated the legitimacy of the police action. Video shows Scott backing up, with hands at his side when the shots ring out, and he goes down. The video does not show Scott raising a weapon nor, however, does it show his right hand. During the video you can clearly hear police showing for Scott to drop his gun.
It was later shown that Scott did have a gun on him, as well as marijuana. Originally, the police knew about the marijuana but chose to ignore it as they were there for a much more pressing reason. Only when Scott brandished his gun in his car did they decide to move in on him for safety reasons. It was even confirmed by Scott’s wife that he carried a black 9mm with him in a restraining order she filed against him.
CNN gave a breakdown of the event, and all events since. However, in their reporting, CNN made an odd mischaracterization of North Carolina’s gun laws, almost to the point of shoehorning it in.
Officers decided to approach Scott after Officer Brentley Vinson saw Scott hold up a gun up while in his SUV, police have said.
North Carolina is an open-carry state, meaning gun owners can carry their firearms in public and openly in their vehicles.
As Sean Davis points out at the Federalist, this is absolutely ludicrous, and it’s clear that CNN has very little idea as to what they’re talking about. “Open carry” does not mean you can have your gun in hand, out of its holster, waving it around. As Davis points out, this is called “brandishing,” and this action is to legally be taken as a threatening state. Furthermore, Scott wasn’t allowed to have a gun as he was a convicted felon. CNN details none of this, choosing only to mischaracterize North Carolinas gun laws, and the concept of open carry. Davis wraps it up nicely for us.
Rather than lawfully open carrying, as CNN implies Scott was doing, Scott was actually a felon (legally banned from gun possession) under the influence of drugs (which also legally bans an individual from gun possession) who was carrying a concealed weapon (which is banned for non-permit holders) which he then brandished (also illegal) and which he then refused to surrender to police (also illegal).
It would be extremely difficult for Scott to have simultaneously violated any more gun laws than he did. Police saw him smoking marijuana and decided to give him a pass on his apparent penchant for weed since they were focused on more important matters. It wasn’t until Scott, by openly using illegal drugs while in possession of a firearm, left police no choice but to confront him. Yet CNN didn’t just refuse to provide that information, its reporters went out of their way to mischaracterize North Carolina’s gun laws. Its readers deserve better than lies and half-truths about what happened in Charlotte.
I’m not exactly sure what CNN, who clearly had all the facts in front of them, were trying to do by addressing open carry the way they did. Either the reporting author is ignorant of said gun laws, or intentionally looped in North Carolina’s open carry law – which Scott completely broke in more ways than one – to paint it as unwholesome.
At a time when racial tensions are at a height, and groups are looking for reason to riot and destroy, this kind of misleading information is not at all helpful.
Is Sen. Elizabeth Warren in a spot of political bother back home in Massachusetts? A series of recent polls seems to indicate “yes”; though the reason why that may be so is not entirely clear.
A University of Massachusetts survey apparently out this week shows what Business Insider’s Josh Barro terms “weirdly soft numbers for Warren” in hypothetical matchups against some well-known Republican figures in Bay State politics.
Against former Gov. and current Libertarian Party nominee for Vice President Bill Weld (no longer a resident of Massachusetts, it bears mentioning), Warren holds a meager 40-37 lead.
Against Massachusetts Lieutenant Gov. Karyn Polito, she fares barely better: 40-36, with just slightly more voters undecided.
Against former Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, she has a seven-point lead, with a yet higher number of undecideds.
Against Red Sox legend Curt Schilling and former Gov. (and Republican presidential nominee) Mitt Romney, she fares the best, with an obvious path to re-election in an extremely blue state. But it seems more likely that a Tisei or a Polito would take her on than a Romney—and that gets us back to the point that she’s evidently in a weaker position than a lot of people might assume, looking at a very liberal senator from arguably the most liberal state in the nation.
The dog still likes her… we think…
The UMass poll tallies with other weak results for Warren in other recent surveys.
An earlier WBUR poll shows her doing better, but still trailing Massachusetts’ Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who scores a sweet 62 percent favorable rating to Warren’s 53 percent, and a mere 16 percent disapproval rating versus her 36 percent.
Yep: Something not all that great for Warren is going on in the Bay State; the question is, what?
Warren came to prominence as a fierce advocate of enhanced financial sector regulation, but one who at least appeared to try to cultivate a not-totally-partisan-hack-y image once forced to let go of her ambition to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and instead run for Senate in Massachusetts. (Libertarians will remember her attempts to mollify the Reason-reading free marketeer crowd by touting her strong belief in contracts).
Recently, that image has slid quite a bit, as she’s positioned herself as a top Democratic surrogate, and was considered as potential vice presidential nominee for Hillary Clinton (who instead passed her over for the nicey-nicey, less fire-brand, and less fire-power) Tim Kaine. Perhaps Warren’s constituents aren’t wild about her move from Harvard professor type to chief Democratic attack-dog.
Or perhaps Warren is becoming seen as too much a national-level player all-around, and too little someone focused on doing Massachusetts’ business, specifically, in Congress.
Consider this: Of 26 press releases she’s put out in the last two months (according to her Senate site), just 7 (arguably 8) relate to Massachusetts-centric issues, as opposed to national-level topics like corporate political spending, the Flint water crisis and FBI records relevant to the financial crisis.
Admittedly, in this time, a brouhaha has emerged over Mylan’s pricing of Epipens and news of the Wells Fargo scandal has broken. The latter is a topic one would reasonably expect a senator of Warren’s profile to spend a lot of time and attention on (true not only because financial sector matters are her pet topic, but also since the CFPB she conceived of is sometimes knocked for going easy on bigger, established financial sector actors like Wells Fargo, so goodness knows, she’d want to be seen as targeting them, hard).
Warren’s Twitter feed, too, is pretty national-issue dominated, and not very “local”: A grand total of three tweets (that’s right, three) out of 80+ since August 30 (inclusive) relate to specifically, obviously Massachusetts issues.
Assuming her in-state press coverage tallies with what she’s physically putting out there via release and social media, the fact is, Warren looks a tad more focused on issues of national-level import that generate enthusiasm from the Sandernistas and MSNBC viewers in, say, Chicago or California than the back-home nitty gritty that people in Lowell, South Boston or anywhere else in-state are probably thinking about, top of mind.
Consider this also: Earlier in the year, when Warren was less in the spotlight than she arguably has been as the vice presidential nomination announcement loomed, as the Democratic National Convention (at which she prominently spoke) played out, and as the election in which she is a sought-after endorser and surrogate has approached, Warren’s numbers looked better.
Now, maybe that just means that Massachusetts residents prefer her inveighing against Wall Street exclusively as opposed to cultivating an image as being the patron saint of Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, the anti-Citizens United movement, SEIU, and any other pet liberal cause one can find.
Or, maybe the increased focus on her relative to the FBI and the financial crisis, or Wells Fargo (much as the bank may deserve it) isn’t working as well politically with average people in her backyard as it is with progressive activists and the “base” nationwide—because let’s be clear, one look at her press releases and her Twitter feed make clear that the national issues she has been hyper-focused on recently really are those pet financial sector-related ones, about which she has been making a lot of noise.
Whatever the reason, correlation between more focus on the national, less focus on the local and soft numbers appears evident. If you believe the maxim that all politics is local, it’s easily conceivable that there is causation, not merely correlation, there, too.
Or perhaps what’s at the root of all this is that Bill Weld, Charlie Baker and Karyn Polito really are just that awesome, and no matter how much of a star Warren has appeared to be, she just looks a bit unimpressive (for now) measured against them.
Massachusetts being what it is, it’s virtually impossible to see her losing her re-election race there (which is, in any event, a long way out). But it is interesting to watch her poll numbers for now, and fun to speculate as to what’s behind their (current) softness.
Chelsea Clinton, ever her mother’s Socialist daughter, mustered up all her indignant glory and took to a liberal rag to bemoan the attacks on her family.
In response to the Trump camp praising the GOP nominee’s supposed discipline, Chelsea Clinton said in an interview that the whole storyline is a “distraction.”
“My reaction to that is just what my reaction has been kind of every time Trump has gone after my mom or my family, which is that it’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election and to offer concrete, comprehensive proposals about the economy,” she said in an interview published Tuesday by Cosmopolitan, “or our public school system, or debt-free college, or keeping our country safe and Americans safe here at home and around the world.”
While Trump has no intention of engaging with his daughter’s best pal, the missive did rile up Clinton rape victim, Juanita Broaddrick, who ripped a hole right through the middle of Chelsea’s pity party, with a series of tweets.
“[Y]ou said you don’t remember a time in your life that your parents weren’t being attacked,” Juanita Broaddrick said in a series of tweets addressed to Chelsea Clinton.
“There’s a very good reason for this — your parents are not good people,” she said.
“Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,” Broaddrick said on a Twitter account that has been verified as belonging to her.
“I say again ‘I was 35 when Bill Clinton Raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away,'” she said.
Under normal circumstances, I would caution anyone from bringing the children into a situation this sensitive and vile, but Chelsea Clinton is a big girl, and she has inserted herself into the election. With that in mind, she’s old enough to know who and what her parents are.
I should probably say “allegedly are” in here, somewhere, so there it is.
During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Comey argued his agents needed to move quickly in June to obtain a laptop computer from Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, that contained classified material.
“The investigative team really wanted to get access to the laptops that were used to sort these emails,” Comey said. Heather Samuelson, another former Clinton aide, was also given an “act of production” immunity deal in exchange for the laptop she used to cull emails.
It’s always a beautiful thing with Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor out of South Carolina’s 4th District, lights into these career scoundrels, and Comey certainly has it coming.
While Republicans investigating Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails and private server knew of an immunity deal given to one IT aid, Bryan Pagliano, there were at least four more whose deals only surfaced after the investigation was wrapped up in July.
The entire situation stinks of collusion between the Clinton camp and the FBI.
Comey said his agents had not interviewed everyone who sent classified information to Clinton’s private server during her tenure. He noted “it wasn’t a smart use of resources to track down” everyone who sent sensitive information to the former secretary of state.
One such individual was a private citizen in Japan whose message to Clinton was ultimately deemed classified. Others were lower-level State Department staffers, Comey said.
Comey went on to acknowledge that had Clinton been employed with the FBI and done anything on this level, she would be in serious trouble and disciplined, probably fired, though likely not criminally prosecuted.
I’ll say it: This doesn’t pass the smell test.
And the absolute most damnable part of it is, everyone on that committee knows it. Comey knows it. But there is very little that can be done about it with the current atmosphere of “Us vs. Them” that has been cultivated in the higher halls of U.S. government.
I do still appreciate men like Rep. Gowdy and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who refuse to let these issues just quietly fade away.