Press "Enter" to skip to content

Nixon reborn

It’s always been clear that the R-party could have beat Hated Hillary with nearly anybody. Mitt-the-Dog-Tormenter Romney or Ghastly John McCain probably could have beat her. A gorilla could have beat her. A retarded gorilla. With mange.

But noooooo. The R’s, having abused their increasingly fed-up base for decades, ultimately horked out Donald Trump. Possibly the only political creature in the country beside whom Hillary actually looks good tolerable less horrible to millions of civilized humans.

It is becoming more abundantly clear, however, that Hillary Clinton isn’t a real individual person at all. She is simply Nixon. Cloned. Sort of like in the Boys From Brazil, but we can hope there’s only one of her.

(Via Cat)

29 Comments

  1. Pat
    Pat October 17, 2016 12:47 pm

    Excuse me while I go take a bath!

    Does the opposition — Trump, voters, anybody — know how they’re being manipulated?

  2. Claire
    Claire October 17, 2016 1:01 pm

    Pat — Given the speed at which that video is traveling around social media, they will soon if they don’t already. Gab.ai. is full of reposts of it, and I got it from yet another source outside. Still didn’t have many views last I looked (about 17,000), but I’ll bet that’s changing fast.

  3. Comrade X
    Comrade X October 17, 2016 1:37 pm

    There was one good facet about Nixon and it was that he got drummed out of office however only because at that point in time there were still some honor in the republicans whereas today we won’t be so lucky because there is no honor when it comes to the democrats (& most republicans for that matter) today from what I see.

  4. Comrade X
    Comrade X October 17, 2016 1:48 pm

    Here’s a Machiavellian thought, IMHO those riots at Trump rallies helped Trump in the primaries (Especially on super Tuesday) which fits with the narrative that the dems wanted Trump as their opponent.

  5. jc2k
    jc2k October 17, 2016 3:32 pm

    I guess this is what they mean when they talk about Hillary’s “ground game”.

  6. pyrrhus
    pyrrhus October 17, 2016 4:06 pm

    Actually, the idea is not only to beat Hillary, but to elect someone who is actually interested in improving things for the American middle and working classes. Someone who will crack down on the bankers, stop spending our patrimony on war, and stop the cheap labor billionaires from “electing a new people.” All those millions of new voters that Trump brought out wouldn’t walk across the street to vote for Mitt Romney, who would simply continue the looting of America, and neither would I.

  7. Claire
    Claire October 17, 2016 4:35 pm

    I agree that should be the idea of a presidential election, pyrrhus. Believe me, I wouldn’t be rooting for a Romney or a McCain or a Dole or any of the statist mediocrities the R’s usually put forward.

    Just saying that, this year of all years, the R’s could have crushed Hillary with any decent candidate, but they did themselves in with their bad history.

    That said, if you have evidence that any candidate in this election actually intends to perform, or even attempt, the wonders you describe, please offer it. But I do mean evidence, not words. Trump talks a good game, but I have asked and asked and asked and not a single person has been able to show me facts, experience, background, or anything else that proves Trump means a single word he utters.

  8. Matt
    Matt October 17, 2016 4:54 pm

    The icing on the cake is the Libertarian Candidate that is a liberal democrat with an ultra-liberal democrat running mate and both barely competent to order dinner at Golden Corral.

  9. trying2b-amused
    trying2b-amused October 17, 2016 6:42 pm

    I unreservedly share the skepticism WRT deeds, not words, which is a major reason not only why I don’t vote, but why the whole notion of voting for “representatives” is problematic, at best. And I’m almost always firmly in the camp of: “truthless scumbag A, lying criminal B, who cares?” But this time around I think there’s a small, but real possibility that one (Trump) could turn out significantly less abysmal than the other, with little chance of being much worse. These guys, who have pretty strong anarchist cred, argue for Trump with rather more enthusiasm than is warranted, IMO, and a few of their points are just wrong, but others are very well taken. If you’re interested in why there is so much support for Trump among those who are usually opposed or indifferent to political action, the vid is worth a watch.

  10. Claire
    Claire October 17, 2016 7:39 pm

    Yikes. That’s an hour long video. How ’bout the short version: what facts are presented in it to demonstrate that Trump is in any way pro-working-class, pro-2A, pro-small-business, likely to end various wars and not get into other ones, appoint “good” justices, etc.?

    I know why people are so excited about Trump: Because they’re desperate and furious and Trump makes the right noises. He plays brilliantly to our frantic desire for someone in power to HEAR US and sympathize and CHANGE THINGS before it’s too late (when he’s not going into self-serving ego-driven rants and vendettas).

    What I don’t get is that when I ask for evidence to indicate what makes Trump’s claims believable, people always respond instead with unbacked opinions and hopes and “so and so says Trump’s okay” and suchlike. Trump and Clinton are both scary candidates. But what’s scarier is people believing in either of them without being able to cite the slightest solid basis for their beliefs.

    What we’ve got here are two warring religions. Or rather, two warring sects of the state religion. An irrational belief system. And in Trump’s case the belief is built solely around the words in his mouth and nothing more. Has everybody forgotten what happens when politicians move their lips?

  11. Jim B.
    Jim B. October 17, 2016 8:47 pm

    Only one of her???

    Let’s see, Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Frankenstein? Opps, I mean Dianne Feinstein. I mean, sure, they’re not named Hildebeast, but C’mon.

    And seriously? You’re all debating between Stinkeroo #1 and Stinkeroo #2?

  12. N
    N October 18, 2016 6:39 am

    I believe Trump qualifies as the “Man on Horseback” / savior for the civilization as described in some book I read way-back-when. A very dangerous situation, but the way I look at it – if Trump upsets so many people in the Establishment – he has to be better than Hillary.

  13. Desertrat
    Desertrat October 18, 2016 7:49 am

    All of Trump’s Republican opponents were business-as-usual types. Joe Sixpack’s fed up with all that garbage. So, who’s a symbol of a change from BAU? The Donald.

    I believe that Hillary is my avowed enemy. She opposes my philosophical and political beliefs in ways that are detrimental to my physical, mental and financial well-being.

    Seems like only one alternative–in a long string of “lesser of two weevils” to mess up the cornbread.

  14. Comrade X
    Comrade X October 18, 2016 8:30 am

    Trump is our “Face in the Crowd” but he ain’t just selling vitamins but his self!

  15. Jim B.
    Jim B. October 18, 2016 8:56 am

    Ok, I’ll admit that Trump may not be that much of an “insider”. Since so many people despises him, that’s pretty much his only saving grace. Hell, I’d vote for him for one thing and one thing only, to piss off the established politburo and the elites as well as to send a “message”.

    The fact that he scares the anti-American countries is only a bonus, as far as I’m concerned.

  16. John
    John October 18, 2016 9:11 am

    Claire @
    October 17, 2016 1:01 pm :
    “Still didn’t have many views last I looked (about 17,000), but I’ll bet that’s changing fast.”
    ~~~ >
    As of just now – views are just under 2.4 million.

    Desertrat @
    October 18, 2016 7:49 am :
    “So, who’s a symbol of a change from BAU? The Donald.”
    ~~~ >
    Would that be the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) of the FBI?
    (or maybe just Bad Ass Ugly/Unpredictable?)

  17. Claire
    Claire October 18, 2016 9:51 am

    John — Yowza! I knew it would do well, but that’s really impressively well. There’s been a big campaign on Gab.ai and probably also on Twitter to get people to send the YouTube links to everybody in the media.

    I gather the video getting hard to ignore. But yesterday after it appeared, “the media” were so scared that even FoxNews canceled a scheduled interview with James O’Keefe, reportedly because they feared reprisals from the DoJ. (Unconfirmed rumor.)

    Also, FYI, Project Veritas is supposed to be dropping part 2 this morning.

  18. LarryA
    LarryA October 18, 2016 12:05 pm

    IMHO Dick Nixon was a politician, and just got caught doing what other politicians had been doing forever. But first, he looked sneaky on television. Second, new technology (like television) and new processes made it easier to record and spread secrets, particularly visually. Third, the media was willing to dump all over “Tricky Dick” in a way that they would never have treated LBJ, much less JFK.

    Anyway, Hillary is completely different from Nixon. She has a vagina, and the media are in the bag for her.

    I hope the revelations make a difference, but I know Hillary supporters will blow them off. Maybe YouTube will make a difference.

  19. Claire
    Claire October 18, 2016 12:45 pm

    Episode 2 of the sleazy little soap opera — or is it an episode of The Sopranos?

    And points well taken, LarryA. Nixon and Hillary are about equally unappealing, but the press enjoyed doing Nixon in. Why on earth they’re so pro-Hillary is a story for another day.

  20. Haverwilde
    Haverwilde October 18, 2016 9:00 pm

    Well there is a comparison to Nixon, sort of. Nixon deleted part of one tape, that probably incriminated him for a nefarious plot. Whereas Hillary deleted 30,000 emails that probably incriminated her for a wide assortment of nefarious plots. Nixon was such a piker.

  21. bud
    bud October 18, 2016 9:10 pm

    You want to know if Trump’s actions will match his rhetoric? Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop this week, but, you know what? It doesn’t matter.
    1) Hillary’s policies -Obama redux, with more; more Moslems, more taxes, more Title IX, more gun control, etc, etc, etc – are terrible.
    2) At least some of Trump’s policies appear good to me.
    3) The Democrats in Congress have the party solidarity bit down pat, and the Republicans seem to have all of the spine of an earthworm. Anything Hillary wants, Hillary will get. See all those “bad” policies up there?
    4) Nothing Trump proposes will achieve significant Dem support, and since half the Republicans in Congress appear to loathe him, not much of even his “good” policies will be enacted.
    So Hillary=bad things and Trump= Gridlock.
    I’m voting for Gridlock.j

  22. Claire
    Claire October 19, 2016 1:51 pm

    Funny how all the MSM, including (notoriously) Fox were reluctant to cover the original Project Veritas videos. But now that the Dem’s are trying to say, “Oh look, the bad guys are gone, and they were never actually under our control, anyhow!” the MSM is jumping on the story — prefacing every mention of James O’Keefe with the word “controversial” and mentioning repeatedly that his videos were edited.

  23. Pat
    Pat October 19, 2016 2:21 pm

    “…prefacing every mention of James O’Keefe with the word “controversial” and mentioning repeatedly that his videos were edited.””

    Yeah, I noticed that. Nothing was said before about O’Keefe, or the story itself. In fact I wasn’t too sure if this story was real.
    The undercover part was barely mentioned, but I couldn’t imagine those guys talking like that otherwise. Of course Foval is so arrogant he seems to think he’s above any law. It’s the sheer lack of morality that disgusts me.

  24. John
    John October 19, 2016 3:52 pm

    A land of 300+ million of us, saddled with a powerfully imposing state apparatus, and same state construct is to have as chief officer, either; one I’ve heard perhaps well described as “her satanic majesty” or instead, that screeching populist. We got here how?

    Leader? I think i’d not follow either creature out of a burning barn…

  25. Mark Call
    Mark Call October 21, 2016 6:41 am

    Late to the party, BUT…

    Sleazy as Tricky Dick was (and, after all, he gave us Full Fiat) — he has at least a level of integrity that Hitlery-with-a-T never had and is sadly gone even from AmeriKa-with-a-K:

    When he got caught — he RESIGNED!

  26. Pat
    Pat October 21, 2016 6:56 am

    I think Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment. The lesser of two evils, you know…

  27. Mark Call
    Mark Call October 23, 2016 7:29 am

    Of course. But it beats doubling-down and rubbing people’s noses in the level of corruption. Bad as he was, Nixon still had shame.

Leave a Reply