Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below

***

Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude

 

Alumni:
Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1

 

KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

Powered by Squarespace
« New Thread, To Provide Room For... | Main | Election Night / New Thread »
Wednesday
May112016

Nominating Hillary Would be a Democrat Disaster Simply to Protect the Status Quo*

I remember MY first time taking the SubwayNot my words.  Those are the words from the Sanders camp.  I would have used the title "trainwreck just waiting for the right time to derail".

In more ways than one Sanders is correct.   Hillary "Sniper Fire" Clinton (in my opinion) is baggage for the Democrat Party.  Her favorablility numbers were not all that impressive going into the 2016 primaries, but lately they've taken a bit of a nosedive, much to the credit of both Trump and Sanders.  

On top of that, she lies, or "conveniently misspeaks" (if one so prefers such a phrase) often, and tends to shift her position based on which way the poltical headwinds are blowing at the time in which her lips start moving.   She's branded herself from left, to moderate/centrist, to (so-called) progressive in a period of time that exceeds only half of my childrens' ages.  

Take coal mining for example.  That one stupid statement about putting them out of business (which she may or may not have even supported... since it's Hillary) has cost her West Virginia in the primary and will likely cost her those same states and then some in the general election vs Trump (Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc).   I'm actually surprised she hasn't come out saying "my history of supporting fossil fuels has been well documented" and tried to lie about always supporting them.  Still time I suppose.

Then there's the whole email/Clinton server thing.  Good grief almighty.  Illegality aside, she actually ran around saying she turned over 90-95%, before claiming "every" email (not of a personal nature ::wink wink::) on her personal server (which was destroyed) before the State Dept had insisted they'd actually received less than 1% of her emails, with Rep. Susan Brooks even pointing out an astonishing drop in Libya-related emails from prevous year 2011, to 2012 (leading up to the Benghazi attacks) and highlighted it as a "lack of interest" (if not a sign of obvious wrongdoing). 

... And don't even get me started on Benghazi.

The last two alone are enough to make your everyday American Joe leery of such an individual, but to ignore such toxicity levels and thrust said person into the deep end of a presidential election?   Well, now that's just reckless.   It's like drag racing to the cliff's edge.  Sanders is spot-on by calling them out on it.

Let's consider just SOME of the things Hillary has flip-flopped on (so far):

She opposed ethanol mandates prior to running for president in 2008 (ironically, they grow corn in Iowa ::wink wink::).

She opposed gay marriage (numerous times) prior to that same primary and supported the Defense of Marriage Act before she was against it (even went as far as rainbow-coloring her "H" logo).

She opposed NAFTA in 2008 as well, shortly after praising it as a boon to the economy.

She opposed raising the debt limit (voting 3 times not to) before "praying that common sense would make a comeback" and pass in 2014.   I suppose she gets folksy bonus points for praying.

She opposed the Keystone XL pipeline (finally, per the link) after the backlash she caused by saying she was inclined to support it.

She opposed raising payroll taxes until she starting "Feeling the Bern".

She opposed TPP before she was against it.

She supported Iran's ability to enrich uranium for civilian purposed, but then rejected the idea in 2014, prior to her help in ushering in Iran to the table in the recent deal (being heavily scrutinized as of late) by saying her team helped "set the table" for John Kerry's horrible negotiations.

I could go on...   Deportations of illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, driver's licenses for illegals, her opinion of President Bashar al-Assad, the Cuba embargo, numerous free trade agreements, gun control, eductation reform, school choice, charter schools...  what difference at this point does it make?

She makes John Kerry look like an amateur flip-flopper.  She IS a bad candidate, and the Democrat/enablers that helped push her far into the lead over Sanders have to be feeling a little skittish as they watch him still in the race, supposedly defeated, yet still drawing crowds that any candidate would feel proud of.

Whether you love him, hate him, or find yourself somewhere in between, you have to admire Sanders and his tenacity.   He is still relevent in the race, and is in some ways doing harm to the "Crooked" Hillary Clinton, who would like nothing more than to wrap up her game of progressive charades and go back to pretending to be a moderate again.   Trying to out-progressive the bigger progressive is not going well for her and it's starting to look like it will affect her beyond securing the Democratic nod.

I'm staring to wonder:   If her numbers tank any further, should the White House just wrap up this email investigation, unleash all their dirt, and throw her in prison in hopes of a better on-deck candidate (be it Sanders or Biden)?

*For sake of potential scrutiny not a single Fox News/Trumpbart article was linked to in this post

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (53)

Holy crap, Skinny! Those linked articles almost make it seem like Hillary's character is [gasp] questionable. Say it ain't so!

May 12, 2016 at 07:57 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Yawn. But thanks for the thread!

May 12, 2016 at 08:00 | Registered CommenterWinston

So here's the shit pie in the face DF THOUGHT he was tossing...

"has the word LIAR associated to her by a majority of people"
Riiiiiiiiiiiight........if you say so, WWM.....
May 11, 2016 at 21:34 | Winston

DF caught me; it wasn’t 50%; as I thought it was 61%. BWA,BWA,BWA,BWA,BWA,BWA, HA,HA,HA, oh’ man DF steps in it again with his NO SHE’S NOT DISHONEST…. See link below. It was The Federalist poll the MSM quoted. The pull quote of the decade...

“Based on the results of the free association question, the registered voters who were polled appear to have busted out the thesaurus in order to capture Hillary Clinton’s sordid history of ethics scandals: crook, criminal, phony, cheat, deceptive, sneaky, devious. Of all the candidates polled, Hillary Clinton scored the worst on the issue of honesty, with 61 percent of voters saying she is neither honest nor trustworthy."

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelmingly-say-hillary-is-a-dishonest-liar/

DF, please oh’ please don’t ever stop being a DF. The world needs ignorant dumbasses like you for a baseline…

May 12, 2016 at 08:04 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Tom, you're upsetting Winnie and ruining his phony narrative.

May 12, 2016 at 08:35 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

This is why I told Wrongest Man to check the original Q poll: due to its nature, there are no percentages. Wingnut sources haven't hesitated to cobble some together, though they don't say how. I dunno how The Federalist arrived at "61%" and they didn't tell us. Did they just make up a number?

Hillary Clinton is probably the most well-known, best-dissected quantity in the political world. There's very little you can say to change people's minds about her now, either way. For instance, many years of her tax returns are posted right now on her website.

May 12, 2016 at 08:45 | Registered CommenterWinston

Bernie Sanders is a clueless socialist, a bum who never had a job until he was in his 40s, and wrong on just about everything. He's unqualified to lead, but at least he seems honest about it all, which is far more than The Old Bag can say.

May 12, 2016 at 09:11 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Crooked Hillary might want to take a few things from the political campaigns of another infamous Democrat, the perpetually indicted Edwin Edwards.

Edwards bumper sticker: VOTE FOR THE CROOK—IT’S IMPORTANT

Edwards quote: "With me, the people know the butter might be rancid, but it’s going to be spread on their side of the bread."

May 12, 2016 at 09:49 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Oh' look at the film DF said would never come close to making $50 million is at; even without video streaming and other rental revenues:

" 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Par. $52,853,219 "

"My name is Winston; I'm smaaaaart. I demand RESPECT!"

May 12, 2016 at 09:52 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

OMG it’s utter panic mode.

In about sixty days the Grand Old Meth-Lab and Child-Molester's Party’s delegates head for Cleveland to present the nation with their candidate for President, a gigantic orange-topped turd. I’m liking our chances.

Two things: First, decades of scandalettes fizzling like wet farts have frustrated Nooshans to the point where they’re giving up trying to prove Hillary Clinton is dishonest and trying instead to prove they’ve CONVINCED people she’s dishonest. (With some success, but much less than they tell themselves.)

Worse, though, wingnuts have reached an endpoint. They now have literally nothing going for them but dumbass attacks. Their own candidate is so repulsive and unlikable and toxic that their ONLY argument is ripping the other one down (aside from vote suppression, which is of course no argument at all). (I guess they think he’ll grow on us. Good luck with that, idiots. Time is short.) The Senate's arguably most conservative member admits being "scared" of a Trump win. As he should be.

This woman terrifies them. Hillary is extremely tough. She does not back down. She knows how to take on and defeat the right-wingers. She has a long record of beating them and fighting for women and kids and the middle class and the less-powerful. Oh, shriek all you like –then try to invent something comparably attractive about the loaf of blowhard ignoramus man-baby Cleveland is about to pinch out on America.

Is it any wonder Redbeard is reduced to openly suggesting that sometimes you need to get behind the white supremacist in the race? As for Mr.Acid's concern trolling about "a Democrat disaster", save your concern. I’m liking our chances. Hahahahahahaha!

May 12, 2016 at 10:42 | Registered CommenterWinston

As for Mr.Acid's concern trolling about "a Democrat disaster"

Technically that was Sanders trolling.... my words involved a "trainwreck".

May 12, 2016 at 10:56 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Winnie is far too busy composing lengthy irrational diatribes, and can't be expected to actually READ what others write.

May 12, 2016 at 10:59 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Is Winnie actually trying to earn the title of Wretched Asshole by posting transparently false crap like this?

"Is it any wonder Redbeard is reduced to openly suggesting that sometimes you need to get behind the white supremacist in the race?"

Come to think of it, our boy Winnie earned that title long ago. I guess he expects to add little stars to the plaque, or something.

May 12, 2016 at 11:30 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

No doubt Winston will never think an unkind thought about Hillary. I once mentioned that Hillary could walk down the street in a 4th of July parade, chewing the heads off of cute little puppies, and no Hillary supporters would be lost.

Now I am not so sure, since Bernie! has been appealing to some young potential voters about turning away from the entrenched establishment pols.

For decades now, young people have been taught that historical decisions should be judged by today's standards and sensibilities, rather than those in effect at the time of the decision-making. The whole concept is insane, since because historical context is important. Decisions can not be made with information one does not have. This kind of thinking is what causes statues on college campuses to be taken down or the faces on money to change because of some long ago sin such as slave-owning.

Some young people, well-taught to judge an old action by today's standards, will be negatively affected by many of the Hillary history lessons. They may not approve of the way the Clinton camp spoke about the women that Bill abused, calling them bimbo eruptions and saying the women were lying and recruited by Republicans to damage the Clintons by dragging $100 bills through a trailer court. They may not just ignore that donations were made to the Clinton Crime Foundation in exchange for favorable government / state department action.

Hell, she could lose some young voters if historical footage can be found that Hillary has, at any time, uttered the words All Lives Matter.

We shall see.

May 12, 2016 at 12:02 | Unregistered CommenterDuff, man

What an interesting situation we find ourselves in. Seems the Left is loosing any moral authority they claim to have.
What happens when character issues are nonstarters for the Dem opposition supporters?
What happens when they lose their strongest weapon of name calling and branding?
What will they do when voters claim 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'?

May 12, 2016 at 12:52 | Unregistered Commentergriswold3

'LOSING

May 12, 2016 at 12:54 | Unregistered Commentergriswold3

What an interesting situation we find ourselves in. Seems the Left is loosing any moral authority they claim to have.

What a sick joke. You can say this as you nominate for President a white supremacist swine who boasts of his many adulteries, defrauds students, rapes his wife, advocates war crimes and lies constantly. It leaves me wondering: is there a single commandment he is NOT proud of violating?

May 12, 2016 at 13:35 | Registered CommenterWinston

Did I forget the incessant bragging and inciting violence?

"Moral authority." That's rich.

May 12, 2016 at 13:57 | Registered CommenterWinston

Yet he's gaining on the most cheated on woman in Washington, who covered for Bill's sexual endeavors, looted the White House china cabinet, withheld government documents from the FBI, was ensnared in scandals (Chinagate, Watergate, travelgate, pardongate, etc.) and helped turn the IRS into conservative group witch hunters... combined with her husband's b.j. in office and an Obama-rigged White House the past 8 years.

They (D's) have helped set the bar pretty low in regards to what it will take to win the White House in 2016.

May 12, 2016 at 14:04 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

However low in the hole Trump might be, Hillary is always about a spadeful of dirt lower.

May 12, 2016 at 14:08 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Dear Gris, Duff, Skinny and Red please remember to address Hillary as her rightful moniker; "Most Admired." Bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa,.......

May 12, 2016 at 14:19 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

I admire the way she screeches. Not everyone can shatter glass and stampede cattle with voice alone.

May 12, 2016 at 14:25 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

"Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally"

The greatest elector of Republicans has struck again...It seems Barry's unlawful actions of taking money from other programs to fund the financial sink hole of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The constitution seems to be fucking with Barry again when it explicitly says the House has the power of the purse; not the Executive branch...

May 12, 2016 at 14:29 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Dear Gris, Duff, Skinny and Red please remember to address Hillary as her rightful moniker; "Most Admired." Bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa, bwa,.......

May as well practice saying "your Highness".

May 12, 2016 at 15:39 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

"Watergate," Mr. Acid? Seriously? Why not, uh, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? Why not the Reichstag fire? The shooter on the grassy knoll?

Aaaaaand ever onward winds the Nooshan kwazy twain.....see, and you wonder why normal people just point at you and laugh.....

May 12, 2016 at 16:10 | Registered CommenterWinston

(actually, I meant Whitewater, not Watergate, lol)

May 12, 2016 at 16:41 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

....check out The Worst Thing in the World as a guest on "Howard Stern."

.....I got your "moral authority" right here, Buster......

May 12, 2016 at 22:17 | Registered CommenterWinston

I see the WSJ has discovered that the Clinton Global Initiative Foundation; you know that foundation people give money to with the belief it's going to help the poor; cure diseases and attempt to solve the worlds ills. It turns out as we suspected it's a slush fund for Bill & Hillary's pet projects like floating a two million dollar loan to a another green project loser in Nebraska with investors who are a who’s-who of FOB's.

Will the FBI get involved due to the criminal nature of this transaction? Who knows. Their stretched thin right now investigating Hilda's other criminal acts.. We need a criminal investigative arm in the U.S. to just handle the Clinton's wrongdoings.

I love FBI Director Comey’s response yesterday when asked to respond to Hilda’s characterization of the FBI’s email actions as a “security review.” Comey said he didn’t know what a “security review meant” but the word investigation is in the FBI title… Btw, all they do is criminal investigations..Wow, bitch slap to Hilda..

May 13, 2016 at 06:27 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Apparently national security is a somewhat fluid concept to The Old Bag. New email release shows Hillary was having trouble connecting with Cheryl Mills on the secure line, so she told Mills to call back on her home phone. What could possibly go wrong?

May 13, 2016 at 08:02 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I understand the dilemma some of these liberals ate feeling.... They LOVE Bernie, and they probably agree with what he said, they just can't say it as adamantly he did because they know they're likely to spend the next 6 months tirelessly defending her, damaged goods and all, so why dig the coffin any deeper?

May 13, 2016 at 08:50 | Unregistered CommenterSkinny

Yup, defending The Old Bag has to be exhausting and frustrating, given her propensity for doing one indefensible thing after another.

It's amusing seeing how many of the melon-headed Bernie people are planning to switch to Trump if Hillary gets the nomination. And they say the Republican side is a mess.

May 13, 2016 at 11:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

From the pics of the woman who got "help" from the Clinton Global Foundation it seems Billy hasn't learned anything since Monica. I wish some reporter would ask Hilda "when's the last time you had sex with Bill?" The answer would be Chelsea's age + 9 months....

May 13, 2016 at 11:23 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

More Clintonian sleaze. The Clinton Global Initiative Slushfund gave 2 million bucks to a company owned in part by Clintonistas and Democrat bigwigs. A cash gusher to benefit friends, and illegally given to a for-profit outfit. And all from a "charity" that spends 90% of its funds on administration, not charity.

So yeah, let's talk about "moral authority."

May 13, 2016 at 13:10 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

2 million dollars? What's that come out to? 6? 7 speeches?

May 13, 2016 at 13:57 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

About right, Skinny.

One interesting fact is that the Clintons have extracted 11.7 million bucks in speaking fees from non-profit organizations since Slick left office. How magnanimous of them.

But hey, nothing to see here. It's just another scandalette.

May 13, 2016 at 14:49 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Our Dear Leader Obama has now crossed another line in his attempts to become a dictator, by threatening states with the loss of federal education funds if they don't allow boys to piss in the girls' restrooms. This "constitutional scholar" of ours has apparently never read the thing.

Luckily we have some law abiding people in government, willing to push back against this latest illegal move by Obama. Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, has just told Obama to go pound sand. Hopefully more governors and state legislatures will join in the effort to constrain Obama and force him to follow his lawful constitutional duty.

May 13, 2016 at 15:42 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Red;

Their is a direct correlation between the increasing involvement of the federal government in education and declining test scores. Education is better served when there is local control... If not we get more dumbassess like DF...

May 13, 2016 at 20:11 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Federal mucking up of education is not just a bad idea, but it's unconstitutional. There is no grant of such power found in any of the articles, and furthermore the 10th Amendment expressly forbids federal action on anything unless the power is specifically granted by the states.

But as usual, lefties (and their foul RINO bootlickers) simply choose to ignore, trample, shred, burn, and trash the Constitution.

May 14, 2016 at 08:51 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

"“Corrupt, Liar, Deceiver, Opportunist” – Focus Group OF WOMEN Rips Hillary Clinton (VIDEO)"

CBS did a focus group of women which included democrats, independents and republicans... They were all singularly united on how much they disliked Hilda... Wow, the "Most Admired Woman" in America seems to have slipped... Next time I write that Americans hate Hilda and DF objects with some b.s. We KNOW American hate Hilda....

May 14, 2016 at 09:27 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Admired is perhaps one of the last adjectives to come to mind.

It's laughable to hear it actually used as an argument, considering only 13% of the 824 adults polled in the Gallup poll (FYI: numerous liberal organizations are listed in Gallup analytics drop-down menu, but Americans for Prosperity isn't even listed as an organization, even though it's huge) actually considered her admirable. The other 87% passed over her, despite how popular she is.

13% is the new majority I guess. Seems more like a popularity contest (and fame tends to follow when you're a former First Lady running for president) than an actual scientific study, but I guess whatever gets the thrill up peoples' legs.

Give it a few months... "Crooked" will be the adjective that sticks, not "Admired".

May 14, 2016 at 11:32 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Everyone is on board with this new bathroom-related civil rights struggle, right?

By the way, not just bathrooms but showers are part of the government edict to schools. I still volunteer coach both boys and girls in high school, I would expect about half of the boys and maybe 10% of the girls would "self-identify" as the other sex (or as gender-fluid) just long enough for a few group showers in the locker room.

May 14, 2016 at 12:21 | Registered CommenterDuff, man

Interesting. But I'm sure this is just another "scandalette" to be ignored.

May 14, 2016 at 13:33 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Duff, I see that 6 states have now told Obama to stick his tranny bathroom edict up his ass. Good for them. More to follow.

May 14, 2016 at 13:35 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Comedy reel for Saturday's entertainment. Here's The Old Bag, in all her lying splendor.

But hey, she's "admired," remember? Admired by the North American Association of Pathological Liars, perhaps?

May 14, 2016 at 16:06 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

She's probably admired by the countless number of women who get cheated on (routinely) by their husbands and decide to stay with them anyway.

May 14, 2016 at 17:48 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Or the National Association of Power Mad Women Surrendering Their Dignity by Using Sleazy Cheating Hubby to Climb the Ladder.

That needs an acronym. Won't fit on their letterhead or business cards.

May 15, 2016 at 08:40 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

From the NY Post-

"It’s only May, but I think I’ve found the euphemism of the year: According to Team Obama, criminals should now be declared “justice-involved individuals.”

If you murder, rape or rob your not a criminal according to President POS. You're a "justice-involved criminal." The laughingstock of the world keeps putting out diktats that Americans increasingly ignore due to the fu*king creepy bizarreness of this administration...

May 15, 2016 at 08:53 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

I had to search that one out, Tom. It just seemed too much like The Onion. But there it is, in official Obama Cabal PC-speak. More proof that lefties have absolutely no self-awareness, and can't tell when they are beclowning themselves.

This would be uproariously funny, if not so serious. Our Department of Justice, turning itself into a laughingstock, is actually no laughing matter.

Here's a thought. Perhaps the Department of Justice could re-focus its apparently massive energies on some stuff like... oh, I dunno... enforcing federal law or something like that.

May 15, 2016 at 09:52 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

If you think the Republicans have problems... check out the Dems

May 15, 2016 at 13:17 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>