Rubio chokes under pressure (again)

The Rubiobot lives.

In anticipation of a contentious Monday-night Fox News segment discussing immigration with Bill O’Reilly Senator Marco Rubio decided to arm himself with this sharply whetted declaration: It Depends On What The American People Are Willing To Support.

I think he was well-rewarded for his efforts, don’t you?

Before Monday night there were some who wondered if the Ruborg weren’t a buggy technological achievement of the conservative steampunk underground. Now I’m afraid there’s no doubt.


I’m a driver I’m a winner. Things are gonna change…

…I can feel it.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Jeb Bush, who sought to join his father and brother in winning the White House, suspended his campaign for the presidency Saturday night after a long year-long slide in the polls and a disappointing showing in the South Carolina primary…

“Tonight I am suspending my campaign.”

If you’re wondering why ¡Jeb! never caught ¿fire? with the voters here’s a hint:

“I congratulate my competitors that are remaining on the island.”

He just. Said that.

Please clap.


A mean individual stranded in a limousine

Trump, the Punisher.

General Pershing was a rough guy…

If you’re going to run a presidential campaign on the future degradation, denigration and murder of oh about a billion people this would be a good way to get your message out.

He caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage…and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blood. You heard about that? He took 50 bullets and dipped them in pig’s blood. And he has his men load up their rifles and he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem.

You have to admire that sort of viciousness. Next-President Trump isn’t telling white people that he’ll hate the haters, or terrorize the terrorists. He’s telling them that he’ll send the Arabs to Muslim hell – when he executes them. This is like vowing to hang troublesome Jews with a rope wound of pig gut. Or promising to deal with the Hindu Problem by carving out their hearts with a knife ground from an ox skull. It’s Medieval.


Shooting Republican fish in thimble-barrels

Not only are Republicans dim they’re quite stunningly slapdash fuckall brainless stupid.

“Well we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year.”

You are wrong.

“80 years not confirming…he was confirmed in ’87.”

You have become dangerously unsound…please refrain from talking.

Watch Debate Moderator Attack Ted Cruz Over His CORRECT Scalia Answer (VIDEO)

This was amazing…

Cruz rightly pointed out it’s been precedent for 80 years not to do this… Dickerson said he wanted to get the “facts” out there. There’s only one problem.

Cruz was right. Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987. He was confirmed in 1988.

It IS amazing. The way Ted Cruz somehow ends up CORRECT after having CONFIRMED he is, in fact, Bungholio-élan stupid. Senator Lee pipes up:

Justice Anthony Kennedy. Confirmed on February 3rd, 1988. Appointed February 18th, 1988.

Justice Frank Murphy. Confirmed January 16th, 1940. Appointed February 5th, 1940.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Confirmed February 15th, 1932. Appointed March 14th, 1932.

Justice John Clarke. Confirmed July 24, 1916. Appointed October 9th, 1916.

Justice Louis Brandeis. Confirmed June 1st, 1916. Appointed June 5th, 1916.

By my count there are about nineteen more. Do be mindful though that the first hundred ninety-seven years of America don’t matter! It’s the last twenty-eight that count skree! Skree!

Breaking: Chuck Grassley is disgusting.

Judiciary chair: ‘Standard practice’ to not confirm SCOTUS nominee in election year

It is “standard practice” to not confirm nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Saturday, following news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

As a result, he said the Senate shouldn’t confirm President Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia.

“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” Grassley said.

Look at the bastard:


Why I’ll never be a Podhoretz American

John Podhoretz has a NY Post piece on yesterday’s Democratic debate called “Apparently We Should Get On a Boat and Leave America ASAP”. But everybody just hold on there, wait a minute. You can put all your oars away because ole’ John is only kidding you. He’s using a famous rhetorical device called ‘hyperbole’. When a writer employs this tactic, he takes stock of the incisive analysis and critical tone of somebody else’s argument, and then he ham-bones his wang to the theme from The Scooby-Doo Dynomutt Hour.

Do you remember Snake Plissken? He was the eyepatch-wearing hero of “Escape from New York,” the 1981 science-fiction picture in which Manhattan has become a prison and Snake Plissken is the only guy who can find the way out…

The two candidates for the Democratic nomination spent most of two hours arguing over who was the better diagnostician of the moral diseases, ideological calamities, spiritual infirmities, racial injustices and downright evils that are being visited upon the…hell they call America.

Moral diseases and ideological calamities? Racial injustices and downright evils? In America?! HA HA HO HO [cf: Headless Body In Topless Bar]. If even a measly one of these maladies existed in PodHo’s world I suppose the whiners could have some sort of argument. But since you can clearly hear his scathing tone there’s no point in wondering.

…what a world. “There is,” Sanders said, “massive despair all over this country.” Wages low. Millions in prison.

The highest rate of childhood poverty in the world. The old have inadequate health care, don’t have enough money for food, are chopping up their pills to make them last longer.

Hillary said immigrants are living in fear. There’s systemic racism. Police brutality.

And don’t forget the horrors of being white, with “an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths. People with a high school education or less are not even living as long as their parents lived . . . Coal miners and their families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country forgotten us?”

More of John’s devastating rhetorical voodoo. Ye shall know them by their words YOU’RE KILLING ME. America in despair, wages low, millions in prison, I mean! The highest rate of childhood poverty in the world? (…in the first world, sheesh.) Old people sick, the poor going hungry, white people dying – and police brutality!

Well then fine but you asked for it. John will now sit himself directly behind this editorial and make the mealy-mouth noises while reciting every petulant observation as if they could remotely ever be true. [“..snivelgrumble…immigrantslivinginfear…yeah pfftboo-hoo..”] Don’t even try to say ‘I’m sorry’ because it won’t work. It’s too late for that.

She concluded the debate by saying Sanders’s focus on punishing Wall Street was limited.

That’s because “if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.”

JPod holds his nose in our presence. But we’re ten paragraphs in and all he’s done is either fairly sum up what the candidates said or quote them at length, accurately. He’s more formidable as an aggregator than he is your opponent. There must be a proper criticism in here somewhere… oooooh alarums!

I thought “The Walking Dead” was a frightening vision of America. That zombie show is a walk in the park compared to Thursday night’s debate.

Yes that is an appropriate response. But we were expecting to hear something from the Shining City spinsters rather than the buck-up boyos. Hey-ooooo….

The loathsome and reprehensible caricature of America foisted upon its citizenry by Sanders and Clinton — a country with undeniably serious problems and challenges that is still the last great hope of Earth and a place Americans should and mostly do still feel grateful to have as their unique birthright — is another sign that we have a great many lessons we’re going to have to learn all over again.

That’s better – but lessons, wut? I suppose he might mean ‘Shut Up You.’ And what exactly could the Last Great Hope Of Earth mean to someone born and raised on the Upper West Side? To a teenager who fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming a five-time Jeopardy champion, then unleashed his razor-sharp mind on all the hippies? Like this?

In the 1980s, Democrats found themselves forced to battle the impression that they were anti-American. So desperate were they to dispel this idea that at their convention in 1984, Democrats waved a thousand flags and chanted “USA” and sang the national anthem until their voices went hoarse.

You’ll never see that at a Republican convention oh no. It’s either Christian refugees being fed into a Soviet wood chipper or Pat Robertson challenging Billy Graham to suck a dick. Which is why I’ll never be a Real American.


Goldman is Hillary’s problem

Who would Goldman Sachs pay $225,000 to give an hour-long speech? Who would they choose to address their meanest sharks and biggest whales? One wonders. Who would the fat cats think is worth that kind of money? A famous liberal of course.

When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs…

This is Goldman Sachs remember, the vampire squid of capitalism. They were likely using Hillary Clinton as a palliative.

…Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.

Did you have a hand in the economic collapse? I didn’t. I doubt you did. For a politician running on the strength of her keen intelligence to accuse innocent people of taking part in an epic crime is a bit off-putting. One thing for sure: We did not all get into this mess together.

But Hillary was willing to say as much and that surely made a difference, for the powerful and guilt-ridden to feel a little less bad about what they did. Over the last couple years she made 2 million dollars soothing the likes of UBS, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as “pure trolling,” while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.

Goldman Sachs was nice to Clinton, giving her more than half a million dollars. Hillary was nice right back to them, pretending they weren’t to blame for millions of people being thrown into deprivation and misery. Confronted with Hillary’s marketable nice-ness…

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

…a campaign spokesman bristled: It’s “pure trolling.” There’s the problem. If it’s so insulting to Hillary Clinton why did she do it?


Hillary Clinton speaking to Goldman Sachs

What did Hillary say at those Goldman Sachs speeches?

When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs… She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

A few weeks later:

On a recent afternoon, executives at Goldman Sachs invited a few hundred major investors to the Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan.

…Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.

Plenty to say about this later when I have more time. Let’s just get the ‘quotes’ up for now.


Hillary’s problem

I wanted to say something pithy about the Sanders vs. Clinton conflict other than to insist it’s wholly necessary. They have to fight it out, it’s got to be done. En garde. I would have liked to say something wonderful about this in a timely and sophisticated manner but it looks as if other people are better at blogging than I am…

Even more head scratching is her attempt to claim that she isn’t part of the Establishment. She’s the former First Lady, a former senator from New York, and a former Secretary of State. She’s worth millions, and she and Bill run the Clinton Global Initiative that deals with the Establishment of countries all across the world. Saying that she’s not the Establishment is ridiculous on its face…

And that’s before we add in that she can walk into the Conrad Hotel in Lower Manhattan to talk to Goldman Sachs executives and walk out a couple of hours later with a check worth more than her opponent’s total net worth.


…Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders’ critique of Clinton is not that she’s cartoonishly corrupt in the Tammany Hall style, capable of being fully bought with a couple well-compensated speeches, but that she’s a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it’s true. It’s not that she’s been bought, it’s that she bought in.

Eight years ago candidate Clinton would visit a state, give her campaign speeches and her local polling would stay right where it was. Nothing happened. She was so well-known and her campaign so routine that appearing in some bowling alley was anti-climactic.

With the challenger it was different. Obama would swing by, give his talk and his numbers would get a big bounce. There was a flesh-and-blood contrast between the candidates. People were impressed with Barack, they took to him. They felt he was genuine and sincere. We’re seeing almost the same thing now with Sanders as the challenger. Some of that is because Hillary is so much a part of our politics that she’s almost invisible.

BONUS: Let’s play ‘Name That Republican’:

[She] made an alarmingly sexist remark on “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night, suggesting that young, female supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders only support him because dudes do, too…

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” she said.

Somebody doesn’t think too highly of young women, right? Was it tipsy Peggy Noonan? Smarty-pants Camille Paglia? Was it the ole’ war eagle, Phyllis Schlafly?

Nope, it was Gloria Steinem. Nice going dumbass.

BONUS BONUS: It’s not because The Boys…

In Iowa this week, women 29 and younger voted for Clinton’s challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders, by a stunning margin of roughly 6 to 1, much as young men did, according to the poll of voters arriving at precinct caucuses conducted for the television networks and the Associated Press…

The problem is not rejection of feminism – surveys suggest millennial women are the most staunchly feminist group of voters in America. They want to see a woman in the White House. Just not necessarily this woman…

“Young women cannot remember a time that Hillary was not a household name, and it confuses them what she stands for,” said Nichola Gutgold, a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, who wrote a book, “Almost Madam President,” about Clinton’s 2008 quest for the nomination. “Rejecting her is a way of rejecting the establishment.”

Longtime feminist leaders have found that development flummoxing and have dived into the campaign to try to turn the tide – so far, to little effect.

“I will be honest. We are engaging sooner than we expected,” said Eleanor Smeal, who runs the Feminist Majority Foundation, which days before the Iowa caucuses put resources into the state to try to boost Clinton’s chances.

Politics is strange stuff, huh?


Dean’s Troubles: Atheists, children and women.

I came upon this classic blog-rant on Memeorandum. The proprietor of Dean’s World gets plenty cheesed when people chide Catholics like him, even more so when they criticize the Church.

I’m sick of hearing bigots squawk about “Hitler’s Pope” and “ratlines” and “pedophile priests” and “being an enemy of science” and “burning Galileo” and “the Jesuits invented the modern Social Justice movement” or other gross distortions or outright fabrications.

Pointing out the mistreatment of Galileo or the timidity of Pius XII during the Holocaust is hurling bodily secretions (“spitting” and “crap”) in poor Dean’s direction so please refrain. Or else. This is not a request, this is your undoing.

Here’s the truth: the Catholic Church is almost certainly the least violent institution on the planet for anything close to its size and history–and in your heart you damn well know it, at least in terms of today’s Church.

It’s the least violent institution in all our history…at least in terms of today’s Church. The same could be said of today’s Charles Manson. Or of our contemporary plague.

And if you do any real investigating you’ll know it’s not just today’s Church; any reasonable analysis supports that Christianity brought peace throughout its history far more than it brought war and suffering and intolerance.

Dean’s ‘reasonable’ analysis: Formidable. Dean’s ‘factual’ analysis: Evanescent. Anyway here’s the screed’s big point:

Christians almost never live perfectly up to their ideals but the Church is inherently nonviolent–and honest people know this. What’s the Church ever really done to you except have ideas you don’t like? Or done something bad that couldn’t just as easily have been done by someone or something outside the Church?

To wit: “The Church is the largest and greatest institution in history, bringing us divinity, peace, art, science, and culture…but it’s only men.” Right, how could it be otherwise?

So Dean is playing the double-sided authoritarian. The pious and papists have all earned the power and influence they’ve accrued over the centuries – not to mention the thousands of billions in tithing and the planet’s greatest collection of art, some of it not merely stolen – but of course they’ve also raped children. Because c’mon, as if you wouldn’t do the same thing. Who did you think the Pope’s consorts were, a bunch of saints?

…NO, you [Christians] damn well don’t get special dispensation to tar innocent people if you were abused by someone within the Church. Innocents do not deserve to have you hold the crimes of others against them for all eternity. The Church leadership made mistakes. It was unbelievably painful. We owned it. Now how are Protestants doing with this issue?

Take that also-nauseating scumbags.

And, bigger question, for you smirking nonreligious secularists: what are you doing about the much bigger problem among government employees like teachers and female prison guards?

The first link there is a five point counter argument against kiddie-reaming being a Church thing, etc:

FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.

Why can’t Percy the shut-in have the same shot at teaching Sunday school as Father Concepción? Hmm? The more relevant question would be ‘Is there some way he can dodge jail and keep his job, too?’ It’s also a relief to know that only four percent of the world’s 400,000 Catholic priests are pedophiles (phew). Jesus, I love data. That second link goes straight back to A Voice For Men, the bro’s rights activist sludge pit. Could it be that Dean’s World is run by the oh-so manly Dean Esmay?



Previous - Next