This Might Explain It
We all know that Ms. Clintoon failed to make any public appearance on election night after it was clear she’d lost. While she did send John Podesta to make a statement on her behalf that evening, she personally made no public appearance until the following day.
Well, perhaps we now know why. Per Political Insider, Ms. Clintoon was reportedly “a bit indisposed” after the election’s results became known late that evening.
“Indisposed” . . . as in crying uncontrollably, unable to stop – then subsequently becoming angry, physically attacking two of her senior campaign staff, and having to be physically restrained. It was also reported that she appeared to be inebriated as well.
Some have called Ms. Clintoon’s behavior that night a “violent meltdown”. If the description in the linked article is accurate, I’d say that characterization is spot-on. I think we all know what Dean Wormer would say about it, too.
Such “exemplary” behavior is just so . . . Presidential. Way to “stay classy,” Ms. Clintoon.
Yeah, I think this might explain quite a bit. Including why we’re seeing so many immature twits on the Left throw a post-election temper tantrum.
They’re just playing “follow the leader.”
(Hat tip to longtime TAH reader and commenter ChipNASA for posting the link in comments elsewhere.)
Category: Liberals suck, Politics
Cankles could’ve avoided all this if only humabedin took the initiative and personally “comforted” her mistress in the privacy of their boudoir…
Humabedin? That’s a new one on me.
What gives?
It’s always sounded like a neat theory, but this camp’s inability to keep secret things secret would almost certainly extend to extramarital lesbionics, IMO.
I saw that too, she was drunk on her ass, cussing everyone and its everyone else fault she lost, then she started hitting aids, finally she had to be restrained physically and a doctor had to put a sedative in her booze to calm her down….wonderful pardon the expression “lady”, I can see why so many buffoons support her!!!!
The other funny comments I read about this was that Bill appeared with her the next day “unscathed”.
He must have been elsewhere that even, fearing for his own safety from past experience.
😀 😀
I have $1.00 says she drops in her tracks before he does.
I think that’s a pretty safe bet for you, Ex.
I’ll take that bet. Oh, I read it wrong, I thought your wrote that she would drop him in his tracks. Nevermind
I’m betting that she’ll ravel up and hate herself to death after unsuccessfully trying to make herself relevant again.
Of course he wasn’t there. The only question is was he banging a campaign intern, a filthy hippie groupie, or one of the hotel maids?
Maybe he was banging Margot Gerster? The campaign worker who just “happened” to meet Bill and Hillary walking in the woods the day after the election. The woman who wasn’t, as it was implied, just an admirer, but was actually a campaign worker. Maybe she offered “solace” to Bill that night and he set up the “chance meeting”?
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/11/12/fake-womans-chance-meeting-of-hillary-clinton-hiking-after-election/
About as “chance” a meeting as Bill just running into Loretta Lynch on a plane alone.
He probably ran into Margot himself quite a few times. Maybe Hillary ran into her a few times as well.
So Bill is Hillary’s Eskimo Brother?
Wow, that’s even more disgusting when you say it out loud.
Whoever photo shopped that pic gave Hillary a lantern jaw that would shame even pre-plastic-surgery John Kerry.
If Hillary really was in the woods, she’d be chewing down more trees than a colony of beavers.
Yes, yes, and yes.
or a CHILD?
” The only question is was he banging a campaign intern, a filthy hippie groupie, or one of the hotel maids?”
Yes.
“unscathed”. Well, Bill does have his on Secret Service detail to keep the beast away from him.
Pulling a Secret Service sucurity detail on these two must be like being a stagehand on The Jerry Springer Show.
I hear whiskey can cure a lot of those problems. Whiskey, or bourbon and ginger ale at a good blues bar down on Clark Street. Chocolate helps, too. She can always retreat to her bathroom closet and shut the door on the cruel, cruel world outside.
But her illegal email server will be in there…waiting.
… green lights blinking like a black cat’s eyes, glowing in the darkness, appearing to move around because she’s whacked on whatever her doc shot her up with….
Yes that would be a classic. I’m getting mean in my old age.
Ain’t nothin’ mean about poetic justice, ma’am.
And Hillary and the Clintoon foundation will soon be singing a rousing chorus in that blues bar
Once she lived a the life of a millionaire
Spent tax payers money, and just did not care
Took all their faux friends out for a good time
Bought bootleg whiskey, cocaine, champagne and whine
And when your foundation has not one penny left
and as for your faux friends you won’t have any
Then she begins to fall so low
lost all her foreign donations and had nowhere to go
cause no no nobody knows you
when you can’t peddle influence and your down and out
And Jonn, TSO or Hondo,
PLEASE go back in the other thread and delete my repeated posts.
For some reason when I posted, the screen refreshed and the post didn’t appear. I even F5’d and also refreshed and didn’t see it. I thought it was eating the post because of the links.
Clean thread as necessary. I reported myself.
Thanks
Thought your Tourettes was acting up.
🙂
Or he was just really really happy about it…
ChipNASA…Don’t sweat it brother. I’ve done it myself. Anyway, it was good stuff and I love reading about the demise of Hillary in any way, shape or form.
From Fellowship of the Minds, on Hillzy’s meltdown, there is this, quoting an unnamed Secret Service agent, ” Twitterer Federal Spy Guy (@FederalSpyGuy) claimed that according to a Secret Service source, when Podesta told Hillary she had to address her followers that she’d lost the election, Hillary said “fuck them – you do it”.
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/11/16/hillary-clinton-was-in-a-drunken-rage-on-election-night/
I’ve done that plenty of times. call me doctor derp
She very well may have had a melt down…probably should have.
I think they wanted to dismiss all of their people from their gatherings across the country before Trump announced his win.
My guess is she called Trump and they gave her people and hour to head home to prevent riots in the streets.
Its probably best they did, the party of being all inclusive doesnt want to be seen for what they actually are…Race baiting Patriophobes who will get violent at the drop of a hat.
Its probably a good thing Gun Nutz are mostly Republican.
OK, I’m “borrowing” Patriophobe for my use. Thanks, Dave.
The Snowflake Liberation Front is all about Patriophobia.
You may be on to something there, Dave. All the mental instability we’ve seen from these libtards since the election could explain why almost all mass shooters are Democrats.
While I find a lot of the action from those on the Left following the election to be, shall we say, ‘deplorable’, I think this is a pretty broad mischaracterization. Out of genuine curiosity, how many people on the Left do you think are getting violent?
And, had Clinton won, how many on the Right do you think would be violent? I’m guessing on both sides it’s a vanishingly small part of the whole.
One of the things I’m constantly arguing with various upset liberals is that labeling a whole group racist (or sexist) is both wrong and counterproductive when the reality is that’s a small portion of a much broader whole. It applies equally here – the vast majority of Democrats aren’t even protesting, and far fewer still are being violent.
Disagree with me and I’ll beat you with a stick.
I agree with the basic jest of your comment. My serious objection to the “Left” since the elections is their lack condemnation. To be fair, some have spoken up about the violence.
The hysterical racist accusations that fuel the violence was created by a small number in the Press.
When the vast majority sit quietly by while while others riot in the streets. They need to find their voice on the matter.
I acknowledge that you are obviously an exception to the rule.
And I largely agree with you, but I’ll point out where I’m unsure how I feel in a a moment. Certainly, though, any acts of violence or destruction of property can’t be condoned – though peaceful protests, while I find them unhelpful, I have no problem with.
Where I’m unsure how I feel, and I mean that truthfully, is that while I think the violence is worth condemning, who has that responsibility? If the elements committing violence are fringe and nobody in a leadership position is encouraging such behavior, how do we ask them to condemn the acts of people who aren’t following their lead?
Put a different way, when some asshole shoots people using a gun irresponsibly, we don’t ask (or, rather, at least shouldn’t ask) all gun owners to condemn those actions. Because such a condemnation is implicit in the fact that the majority are not behaving that way.
Should the Right have to condemn a KKK rally that is held in celebration of Trump’s win, or is it implicit that ‘conservative/republic’ is not synonymous with ‘racist’? I think so, and I also think ‘liberal’ does not imply ‘violent protester’, so the Left shouldn’t have to condemn people who don’t represent what they’re about.
Then you get into whether they should, but that’s also complicated because soon you’re in the trap of having to condemn every stupid act someone who identifies with your ideology does. I just think it’s better to extend the benefit of doubt to people. (And yes, I realize lots of liberals aren’t doing this, to my regret.)
Anyway, I think lots most things, we have lots of agreement but the finer details are not so clear.
Interesting perspective. After some contemplation…Yes, gun owners and moreover public figures that support gun ownership should speak out against the unlawful use of them.
For example, I am not just Atheist I am an Atheist activist. I write and publicly debate the topic. When some nut case who claims to be Atheist does some stupid shit I am very vocal about it.
My Atheism is not more important than my neighbors right to worship as they choose. The so called “right” or in this case those who voted for Trump and made it publicly know should loudly condemn any KKK endorsement.
“They” “should” do these things. I realize there is a point of diminishing return to its value.
Yes, many conservative voted for Trump. But, they are not the ones responsible for putting him in office. It appears many people who voted Obama crossed over and many people in rural areas turned out to vote.
I try to determine how great of a threat a person or group is. Right now it appears the hoards damaging property and life are more of a threat than the KKK. I clearly do not support either, but my attention is drawn to prior.
I think that’s a pretty reasonable point of view, but where I think it breaks down is (to use your example of a nutcase Atheist doing stupid shit) the difference between your private life and the very public life of political leadership. What I mean by that is that you, in your daily private life, may have someone you know mention a nutjob Atheist being a dickhead, and it’s easy to say, “Well, that guy is an asshole, clearly.” But when you’re a public figure, you don’t have a close group of friends that mention the nutcase they ran into to you.. they mention every nutcase Atheist being a dick across the whole country. So if we assume there’s one asshole like that for every 50K people, your chances of hearing about someone running into one every day is pretty low. How often does someone in private life hear about potentially 50K other people? Maybe once in six months? But if there is 1 in 50K people, that means there are 6400 people like that in the whole US, and someone is running into them and, if you’re a public figure, someone is asking you the denounce them. If you were to have to hold a press conference every time one of those 6400 idiots did or said something stupid, you’d get nothing done. And, I’d guess, be pretty tired of having to defend the indefensible. Maybe I’m wrong? I’m also an atheist, and have been for years, and I know I got tired of having to answer to everyone’s experience with the jerk-of-an-atheist they once met, and I didn’t even have to do that often. That said, I do wish Clinton would come out and say something about the violence, and to my knowledge she hasn’t. Trump, to his credit, did say something brief. I .. don’t know why Clinton hasn’t. Still beaten down by the loss, perhaps? Or the possible viewpoint that the liberal transgressions aren’t nearly as severe as the conservative ones in the post-election results. I know CNN tends to be pro-Clinton, but here’s one such… Read more »
Forgot to post the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
We appear to have similar opinions on this issue in general.
We both have some bias an are aware of that fact. Overcoming it with an objective analysis is always the challenge.
“Liberals are posing more of a threat..” is assumptive that the hoards in the street qualify as liberals. My inclination is they in large part are neither conservative or liberal. I doubt most of them vote at all. It would be interesting to round up groups of them and water board them until they admit that.
It is our general nature to dehumanize the opposition. Labels are a way to express that. On most fiscal matters I make Trump look liberal.
The notion that Trump supporters are racist or any other like kind label is a huge error being played out in the press. In turn, the notion that Hillary supporters are all Patriophobes that hate Jesus is equally bizarre.
The vote that didn’t turn out and the voting block that did most certainly tend to lean in polar directions…but not to the extent that I think either could be labeled conservative or liberal.
The KKK and the MVMM (my vote matters more) crowd do not represent either candidate. Any endorsement by either side is a non sequitur.
Just a quick observation on the “how many on the right would be violent if Clinton won?” question….
I’m thinking that perhaps it would be the same number of folks who took to the streets in November of 2008.
After all the racist, homophobic, misogynist, uneducated folks that elected Trump and voted against Ms. Clinton were no doubt the same folks voting against President Obama so clearly violence would be their only likely response….
I think it’s nearly forgotten in the dustbin of history by now, or simply not seen by people who don’t focus it (similar to how my liberal friends don’t often know about any incidents of violence fellow liberals, though few in number, maybe be committing), but there were acts of violence in November of 2008. I genuinely can’t tell if that was your point, or if you were inferring there weren’t, so forgive me if I’ve misunderstood.
Overall, though, their number were relatively few as well, like now. I’ll grant, even, that maybe there were fewer, but I think the nature of the fringe actions of conservatives and liberals differ. The point is, it’s a very small part of the whole.
The second point I’d make is that I think there’s a difference (from the liberal perspective) between voting against Obama (representing, possibly, a racism against a person), and a vote for Trump, who is seen as racist on a considerably different level. I’m not arguing the truth of that, mind you, just saying that I think people felt voters against Obama were racist to one person, whereas voters for Trump are racist against large swaths of people.
I clearly remember a sudden huge surge in firearm and ammo purchases. One thing is for sure and tell that B. Hussein 0bama is THE GREATEST Firearms and Ammo Salesman in U.S. History! Maybe it’s time to replenish my firearms collection that I tragically lost in a fishing accident and a sinkhole somewhere that unexpectedly opened up.
Lars, that’s very close to the “Most Muslims aren’t violent” argument. And as we then ask why all those good Muslims don’t protest the bad behaviors of their violent brethren, we must ask the same of you.
AFAIK, LC is not Lars.
LC is a liberal(ish), but is neither an idiot nor a shitbag, and therefore cannot be Lars.
The Book of Common Sense by T O W.
As the others have said, I’m not Lars. And yes, I don’t think large groups of a particular ideology need to condemn the actions of fringe groups whose actions don’t represent the ideals of the larger group.
The questions are 1) when does the small group represent a sizable enough portion of the larger group that a different approach is needed, and 2) who can adequately condemn actions of a large disparate group to an adequate degree?
In the case of the rare cases of violence (and less rare but still rare) acts of property destruction by liberals right now, I think both are small enough that they do represent a fringe and not a common sentiment.
Right nobody is asking Christian leaders to step up and denounce a murder of an abortion doctor because the assumption is that most Christians aren’t going to become murderers. That sort of forms the basis for the all muslims are basically good argument.
I might suggest that the difference is (mind you I’m very much a non-believer) Christian culture here in the US has worked hard towards creating an equal environment for women and minorities, we can argue about the success rate of that effort certainly and I would understand we’ve a long way to go at this time. However many Islamic cultures codify into law clear mistreatment of women, non-citizens, children, things that would drive liberals into hysteria were they taking place in christian nations.
One area where I really agree with Maher is the liberal blindness towards islam….it makes for interesting discussion.
LC, I don’t know what your viewpoint is, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of the whole destructive thing. I do not, because I saw it firsthand in the 1960s, in the Watts riots in Los Angeles, the protests bolstered by the SDS and the Weather Underground, and the same destructive riots in Washington, DC, and other cities when Martin Luther King was killed on the balcony of his hotel room. They were mostly excuses to break and enter legitimate businesses and steal whatever could be stolen, but they were NOT small nor were they represntative of a fringe element.
There is no difference between the pipe bombs constructed and detonated by Ayers, the explosive riots following the beating of Rodney King, the asinine manufactured outrage in Ferguson,Mo, and the insane mob rule following a football game where cars are overturned and destroyed. This is NOT a fringe element at work. It is an excuse to go as out of control as possible on a whim.
Your view of it is quite naive. The destructive activity does not have to be the result of dumbassed twits falling for a political narrative as if it were some New Age religion. The only thing needed is an excuse to get completely out of control, which is exactly what happened in everything I’ve referred to.
All it takes to drop that veil of ‘control’ is someone watching a crowd of protesters, waiting for the right moment to set off a minor explosion.
That could have happened in Chiago in 2012, during the NATO summit, when protests against it were going on. Three men were arrested for building keg bombs in the apartment they had rented. Their plan was to set them off in the crowds watching the protesters.
It had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with destruction.
What I’m hoping is that a video will emerge of her actions.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some of her sheeple will have their eyes opened.
Never happen. And even if such a video existed, no media outlet would dare show it.
Hell, they’re still hoping that by some miracle Trump will say, “Just kidding, guys, didn’t really want the job!”
I’m actually hoping that. Well not that he concedes it to her, but that after getting sworn in he delivers a lecture about the gullibility of the press, says just kidding, and turns it over to Pence. Because as much as I’m enjoying Hillary’s loss, I’m not a huge Trump fan.
What if the first 100 days show that he can be a great president?
Will you publicly recognize that you were wrong about him?
Sure, but we ain’t there yet.
I’m fairly liberal, and I sincerely hope he becomes a great President. And if he does, I’ll give him a ton of credit.
But he has a tendency to be a jackass. So if I were to bet money on whether he’ll be a solid, principled leader or mired in scandal and divisive rhetoric, I’d sadly bet on the latter. While still hoping I’m proved wrong in the long run.
And, worst-case – that would be different than the last 8 years how, precisely?
You and I will clearly disagree on that front. Rather than list all those areas we’ll disagree on, maybe we can agree that politics aside, President Obama hasn’t had any personal scandals? Whereas Trump, more like Bill Clinton, has various allegations of sexual assault against him, accusations of racist rules at his properties, etc. There was also a time when a Republican candidate on his third wife would be wholly disavowed by the establishment (as a ‘scandal’), but we seem to be past that era. And if you want some that tilt towards Clinton rather than Trump, President Obama doesn’t seem to have a foundation that solicited pay-for-play from foreigners, he doesn’t give secret speeches to banks where he says one thing in public and another in private, etc.
All told, personally (as opposed to politically), he’s been very clean. And Trump isn’t.
I’d like to think that even people who detest President Obama can agree that he hasn’t had any personal scandals and Trump has multiple allegations against him.
Last time I checked, the title of the office is “President of the United States” – not “Pastor of the United States”. Personal scandals that don’t involve the use or misuse of government resources may be indicative of character, but are otherwise largely irrelevant. Dig deep enough, and everyone has something to hide.
Personal scandals are largely irrelevant because they do not involve the use of Federal agencies and resources to screw political opponents or illegitimately reward supporters. Under the Obama Administration, we’ve seen a steady stream of exactly that: IRS, pay-for-play, “Green” energy subsidies used as political payback, ignoring clear election and other law violations for political reasons, etc . . . .
And don’t get me started about the abject incompetence we’ve seen in foreign relations, or the near-dismantling of national defense.
Obama is the POTUS. If he did not know all of this was being done on his behalf, he is ridiculously incompetent. If he did know, he was an active participant in the wrongdoing.
The current administration is thoroughly corrupt, as well as inept. The only question is whether that corruption extends all the way to the top, or if the person in charge is an abject fool who surrounded himself with corrupt and/or inept subordinates.
Either way: Obama’s currently the POTUS; he’s in charge. And as the sign Truman kept on the Oval Office desk put it: “The buck stops here.”
I think most people do value personal character in a President – else why are Bill Clinton’s indiscretions mentioned with such distaste among conservatives?
While maybe it’s true that if you dig deep enough everyone has something to hide, the reality is he’s generally seen as likable, intelligent and charismatic. And Trump is not.
As for the political issues, like I said, you and I will disagree on that. I can point to multiple things I like that he’s done, but almost certainly you’ll disagree. That’s fine; my only point was that over the past 8 years there haven’t been any personal scandals.
If that holds true for Trump’s next four years, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Personally, I’m not particularly bothered by Cigarman’s carryings-on with Lewinsky. Though young, she was hardly an “innocent child”; hell, she was a willing participant and knew precisely what she was doing. She’s said as much. In short, his carryings-on with Lewinsky are a matter between him, his wife – and his Maker. Not my concern. I also tend to discount accusations against Cigarman regarding stuff that occurred long before he took office – even Broadrick’s, which are the most credible and troubling of the batch. Something that occurred that long ago is often effectively not provable – either way. And false accusations against the famous are hardly unknown. What did bother me about Cigarman’s sexual antics while POTUS was twofold. First, he got a pass that no conservative would have gotten regarding his personal conduct. The press bent over backwards to excuse his behavior, or to sweep it under the rug. Hypocritical double-standards disgust me – and we saw one there, bigtime. Second, what REALLY bothered me was the matter of Cigarman’s perjury. The man was the freaking Chief Executive, for Pete’s sake. He was charged with ensuring the execution and enforcement of all Federal laws. And he deliberately lied under oath about a piddling matter – simply to avoid embarrassment. He may also have attempted to use US military action as a distraction; IMO the timing of the attack on the Sudanese “pharmaceutical factory” may well not have been coincidental (think “Wag the Dog” come to life). The press gave him a pass on those, too – a pass that no conservative would have received. Nixon was crucified in the press for what legally was no worse a crime. Clintoon got public support from the press instead. My real beef with Clintoon as POTUS was that he was IMO criminally neglectful of US security. He treated international terrorism as some kind of legal matter – not as a life or death matter involving US citizens and security. He and his cronies were the assholes responsible for 9/11 – and the 3,000 dead and billions in damage we suffered that… Read more »
You personally didn’t mind those personal failings of Bill Clinton, but I think the majority of people did. Look at the debates in this very election – there wasn’t nearly as much of a focus on policy as there was on character.
As for (Bill) Clinton and the military, I don’t disagree with you on the readiness factor and general preparedness of our armed forces under his tenure, though I’m more inclined to say his pass from the media (and the population at large) was due to the economy doing well, and not simply the fact that he was a Democrat. Probably another thing we’ll disagree on, though.
But I’m curious about what you wrote regarding 9/11 – I’m certainly amenable to the notion that Bill Clinton deserves some blame, but I don’t know how I’d split that blame with Bush. Do you think Bush deserves any of the blame? And had we suffered an attack nine months into Obama’s presidency, can you honestly say you’d afford him the same pass of putting blame on Bush instead, since the actions of the previous 8 years would take more than 8 months to ‘fix’? Or does that same sentiment not hold because you feel the Bush years didn’t do anything to weaken security? If so, and Obama undid that in 8 months, how? (Yes, this is a hypothetical situation, I know.)
Assessment of blame for 9/11 is a complex subject – one worthy of an article. Check back regularly over the next few days. If time permits, I’ll write and post one giving my opinion on that subject.
“accusations of racist rules at his properties….”
Nope. You have it backward.
Florida Lawsuit Reveals What Trump Thinks About Discrimination
“…long before he was running for president…”
by Jack Davis July 5, 2016 at 8:04am
http://www.westernjournalism.com/florida-lawsuit-reveals-what-trump-thinks-about-discrimination/
In 1997, Trump purchased his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida and converted it into a private club. Under existing law, Jews and blacks were not allowed.
Trump asked the town council to lift the existing restrictions on the club, and when they refused, filed a $100 million lawsuit alleging the town was “discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African Americans.”
You can start apologizing right now.
I don’t toss around the title of ‘racist’ easily, and haven’t personally done so to Mr. Trump. Like most things, it probably isn’t black and white, and maybe his opinions on things have changed over the years – but despite the case you cite above, there are quite a few other references that do show what would be considered racism. The long-ago Justice Department case against Trump (and, more so, Trump Sr.), but that could be argued as being long ago or more about his father, fine. But then there are recent complaints by people who’ve been on his shows. So, sure, maybe they’re making them up or are overly sensitive. There are lots more, too – here’s one such article listing some:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html
Does that mean Trump is racist? I don’t know; I don’t know him, and it’s too soon to tell. Bannon as Chief Strategist is a bit worrying because of comments he’s made in the past, but only time will tell. My point is he has had to deal with multiple accusations of that.
This bitch is like a bad coin in a vending machine and will be back. Hopefully a video will surface to prevent her return. Wonder if anyone asked her “what difference does it make?” a few days after the election.
I am just glad that Jack Bauer was able to infiltrate Clinton Global Initiative Headquarters and disable the doomsday device before Hillary could push the button.
Another fine example of stupid does here…
Now that’s a way to get a hangover. Blow an election, get sloshed, throw a temper tantrum…
Betcha she felt really fine next morning.
Karma is a b**ch.
Anyone else would’ve been tazed, cuffed, and stuffed. Anyone else noticing a lot of that going around?
I keep envisioning her blowing her top like the “sorcery guy” in the jet.com commercial.
I’d suggest that her supporters might be shocked at her behavior, but the level of blind fanaticism exhibited over the past week makes me think she could stab a newborn baby in front of the screaming mother while throwing nazi salutes on live TV and they’d still fawn over the bitch.
Too true, TOW.
This makes me smile. I’m not celebrating Trump’s victory, but I am most definitely celebrating Hillary’s loss! Karma always wins, she’s patient, quiet, and will always sink her fangs into your ass!
I don’t believe in karma, but comeuppance can be an ice-cold bitch!
I think they’re distant cousins.
Since we’re quoting Animal House references, I’m sure hoping this part isn’t accurate….
The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests—we did.(wink)
It’s quite amusing thinking she lost her shit Tuesday night and went full drunken rage idiot….that’s enough to make me smile straight through the holidays…
Blutarsky 2020!
I’m putting you two on double secret probation!
https://youtu.be/38ETQ1RYa_Q
Please – show some respect. That’s “Senator John Blutarsky”. (smile)
Not really, didja see the “Where are they now” special clip on the “Animal House” Anniversary DVD?
““Indisposed” . . . as in crying uncontrollably, unable to stop – then subsequently becoming angry, physically attacking two of her senior campaign staff, and having to be physically restrained. It was also reported that she appeared to be inebriated as well.”
No biggie. I’m sure that everyone who has lost the election has done the same thing.
Seriously, with this she showed that she is not fit to be president, just doesn’t have the temperament.
You hadn’t heard? Romney did the same thing.
OH? He didn’t?
I lost an election once. School board, but VERY hard fought, a lot of time, money, and emotional energy. I came in 2nd of 3, but it didn’t matter. I held it together until I got home, shed some tears (more out of emotional exhaustion than anything else), but I did NOT cry uncontrollably, get angry at anyone, get drunk, pitch a hissy fit, swear at anyone, or throw things. Hillary’s behavior is inexcusable.
Do the phrase “poor loser” spring to mind?
The inevitable somehow didn’t happen. She didn’t get her way. The usual reaction then followed. Nothing to see here, just another day with the Clintoons, who surprisingly ain’t gonna be amurikas first fambly, again. Except in their minds, or whatever they use.
Now it’s up to Chelsea, reminding one of the series of Damien movies, somehow.
Damien, great reference. That is worthy of me sending you a Hallmark Gift Basket Of Deplorables this holiday season.
Regardless of whether or not any of this is true or not, I would pay good money to see a picture of her face when the “Blue Wall” was broken. When Fox called Wisconsin and Iowa for Trump it must have been devastating.
😀
I have never been so happy to see the outcome of an election! This great nation would have been doomed if this bitch won!!
I’ll bet Bill got ripped a new one. My guess is that he is going to be gone within a year.
Hillary having a hissy fit. I don’t think we need her finger on the nuclear trigger.
I’ll bet he was too busy feeling up another fat chick to notice.
The sad part of this election loss is that there are dozens of overweight girls with daddy issues who will not fulfill their lifelong dream of “interning” for Bill Clinton.
Ed Klein suggests Bill Clinton was ignored by the Hillary campaign team. Allegedly some screaming between Bill & Hill over disagreements on how the campaign was being run.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-james-comey/2016/11/15/id/759037/
I’m sure ‘ol “Blowob Willie” is in the dumps now that Hitlery will be home with him EVERY NIGHT, Nyyaaaaahahahahahahaha…..
I think I love this young lady…
Were I a single man…
I *am* a single man! (Old enough to be her father, if not grandfather, but still …)
Oh my.
She looks to be roughly my age…within five years either way of 30. But I’m happily spoken for.
FapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFapFap
😀 😀 😀
I never knew Ann Coulter’s younger and more outspoken sister was brunette. (smile)
Well said, lass. Damn well said.
SWEET little lady, and she don’t mince words!
Oh, hells yeah!!!
Best one yet:
https://youtu.be/Z-IhRL8OwO4?list=PLFSvgCvlkhhYIlCxK-cGN-9xEnnbsWkJ2
https://youtu.be/Z-IhRL8OwO4
Lash LaRue is back !
https://youtu.be/dvdvCrRq56c?t=12s
I think I am in love.
Since Hillary first came here to Arkansas decades ago, people have described her as a “bitch” and this latest behavior explains why. That the woman is a phony, through and through, is crystal clear to those who aren’t blinded by the mental illness of liberalism.
Why is the Democrat party so hell-bent on running phonies for office: Kerry, phony war hero; Fauxahontas Warren, phony Indian; Blumenthal, phony Vietnam vet, Gore, phony inventor of the Internet?
By the way, on another site I read that Mabus was calling himself a surface warfare officer in his bio until some sailor pointed out that the designation and badge weren’t authorized until after he served. I checked his bio and it was no longer there.
I thought Mabus was a “drydock warfare officer.”
I’m thinking SLJO is more like it, given his “manly” military appearance and bearing
abovein the photo Jonn posted the other day with the article about Mabus. But I could be wrong.Nope. He’s an assliplock warfare officer.
Mabus’ highest rank during his time was LtJG, then he ran off the dry dock to dry land. That’s like leaving the enlisted ranks after 2++ years as a Seaman Apprentice (E-2) shore duty puke.
Notice the large bruise on the left side of her face in today’s public address?
One discussion thread indicated she had to be restrained and sedated.
Would explain the VERY exasperated look on Podesta’s face when he had to go out and make the weird announcement on election night.
Please, I don’t ever ask people for much. Consider joining the effort to help during these troubling times. So many need our help.
Here’s a good one for employers unfortunate enough to have to hire them:
I had a Millenial work for me a few years ago. I only wanted her to do filing, as I was badly backed up and coming in on weekends didn’t help. So I showed her the filing system, a simple alphanumeric system, and in less than 3 days she had made a salad out of my files.
So I sent her back to the agency that sent her to me, and told them she needed LOTS OF SUPERVISION and that she was as thick as Lousiana gumbo.
And I went back to going in on weekends to do filing.
19% of the work force, huh? Well, there are plenty of wastebaskets that need emptying and copiers that need paper replenished, and I’m sure that building janitors will welcome an influx of newbies to train. There are also greasy spoon roadside diners that have tables needing cleanup.
Oh, and McD’s? Well, you have to be smart to work the drive-up window, which leaves out most of them. So that’s why we have retired peeps and Latinos working at McD’s.
Would you like fries with that?
Working drive-through is harder (physically and mentally) than just about any other job at McD’s, except maybe GM. I have a son doing exactly that while he completes his paperwork to go to the FAA Academy.
I pictured her meltdown going along the lines of this (considering the dead bodies the Clintoons allegedly leave behind).
https://youtu.be/dgoDvnebHRw
The real reason she had a meltdown is because the second Trump’s win was announced, all those pay-for-play donations from foreign governments dried up. I wonder how many of them will demand a refund?
Now we need a state AG to file RICO charges against the Clinton Foundation to see ALL of them spend the rest of their years in the slammer.
Yeah HOW will the Klintoons be able to keep going on their meager $300 million without either getting six digit speaking fees?
Mrs. Clinton has been indulging in temper tantrums for years. I first heard of this behavior when I was living in a suburb of DC, and she was in the White House. When Trump remarked on her temperament, he was only repeating a secret as open as Bill’s philandering.
Indeed. She’s reported to have physically thrown an ashtray at Cigarman on at least one occasion in the White House. If I recall correctly, that happened before the Lewinsky affair, but after one of his “bimbo eruptions” (as the press termed them) came to her attention.
She wasn’t mad he was doing it. She was mad he got caught doing it because it tarnished her image too.
I can’t help but wonder whether she also went into one or more of her well-publicized seizures. If rapid-fire questions from a fawning press could trigger a seizure in her, how much more the horrifying realization that her hopes of winning the election had been cruelly dashed?
Or, the sight of a couple hundred red, white and blue balloons descending from the ceiling of the venue of the DNC convention. She definitely had a short seizure, for everyone to see, live.
Yep.
https://www.facebook.com/loveanthropocene/videos/1132893780112045/
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vKDzgRdEY&w=560&h=315%5D
Not sure why you posted those, Joe, but she lost and has been reported to be a very sore loser, from various source. Don’t know the accuracy of those sources, but it is well-known that she does have a rotten temper, therefore I would take them to be accurate reports.
Trump won. She lost. End of story.
I wasn’t trying to make a political point, just thought it illustrated Hillary snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. She was a very mediocre candidate and she lost. I’m not fond of her, but on the other hand I fear Donald Trump. I bet even some of you guys and girls have some reservations about the guy who you voted for.
Okay, you made a good point but you weren’t clear about it. Frankly, I think it’s fair to say that her political career it done and dead.
Insofar as Trump as the ‘right’ candidate is concerned, he was not the ideal but he was the metaphor ‘a breath of fresh air’. He blew the doors off smug politicians. Yes, he pandered to the voters, but he knew better than Clinton did which buttons should and should not be pushed. And already, that rhetoric has either died or been toned down drastically. He’s getting down to the business of the State right away.
He’s as middle-of-the-road as you can get, so let’s just give him a chance.
Unlike a lot of left-leaning people, I intend to give him a chance, in part because on most issues I have no clue what his position really is, and in part to respect the process – I’m not gonna play the “rigged election” game like he said he was gonna do if he lost. What troubles me as much as some of his inflammatory campaign rhetoric are some of the people he is appointing. Sadly, I foresee a period like the late 60’s – early 70’s with lots of turmoil and massive protests. But I will reserve judgement at least for a little while.
IMHO, Schillery could have authored anything Machiavelli wrote. An appropriate pen name for her might have been Machiavshilleri. Imagine her poor Bill becoming the First Husband. Or would he have become the First Cigarman?
Oh, come on. Give old Nicco a break.
He was a pragmatic fellow. ‘The Prince [of the State] must do whatever is necessary to maintain order….’
Some people just tend to carry that ‘whatever is necessary’ thingy too far.
Ex…and good to hear from you again. “Whatever is Necessary” conveys a total disregard for limits to achieve. Their “necessary” is contempt for moral character and behavior. Don’t you sometimes wonder to what degree some elected leaders view the idea as a self-protected right, and no consequences should be considered regardless as to damage resulting from the quest?