It's rapidly becoming a 'badge of honour' :

Basket of Deplorables just capped Hillary's support. The point of the the electoral race, right now, is to win more supporters, not build a base. To win those supporters you need to draw voters from trump or gary johnson. "Basket of deplorables" has now sealed up any trump voters coming to her side.

It would be like trump saying "half of hillary supporters are ugly cat ladies that are just mad that they can't land a man like myself, Don Jr. or Eric" it might be true, but you don't SAY IT.

She must surely have gone off script.

It sounds like something everyone jokes about back stage and has a good laugh at, and then Woozy Hillary gets on stage and thinks "I know how to get a few laughs".

Hillary's Cleveland speech summarised :

(09-09-2016 06:33 PM)Adonis Wrote:  She looks sedated as fuck in this 4 question, 8 minute presser. Watch for the cough @ 7:02.

It almost looks like she intentionally cut it short and just walked away before a coughing fit started.

(09-10-2016 06:48 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  It's rapidly becoming a 'badge of honour' :

Where is Roosh?

Clinton just wilfully violated one of the most cardinal, basic rules of politics: Never insult your opponent's supporters.

Let alone the fact that she has essentially declared war on a quarter of the American people.

Despite all the attacks that Trump has carried out and all the controversial comments he's made, he has never directly targeted Clinton's supporters for ridicule or insult.

You can bet that comment is a harbinger of what to expect if Clinton wins the presidency.

If she scraped out two of Bills kids and dropped them in the trash at a clinic, how can anyone expect she would care about them. Chelsea should thank God every day she was Websters and not Bills seed.

(09-10-2016 10:33 AM)rpg Wrote:  If she scraped out two of Bills kids and dropped them in the trash at a clinic, how can anyone expect she would care about them. Chelsea should thank God every day she was Websters and not Bills seed.

How is it even possible to convey that many viscerally disgusting and repulsive images in only two sentences.

CNN has a story on her "deplorable" debacle on their front page. A video on that article displayed an interesting statistic - 64% of Trump voters claim they are more anti-Hillary than pro-Trump. Her stupidly divisive remarks just fired up a voting base that was already one of the most dedicated, rabid voting bases of our lifetimes.

On the CNN article they have a video that autoplays showing a panel discussing the incident. After it finished, the next video to autoplay was showing her recent coughing fit in Cleveland. I'm shocked to see CNN not protecting her. I wonder if something is going on there.

(09-10-2016 09:47 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  Clinton just wilfully violated one of the most cardinal, basic rules of politics: Never insult your opponent's supporters.

Let alone the fact that she has essentially declared war on a quarter of the American people.

Despite all the attacks that Trump has carried out and all the controversial comments he's made, he has never directly targeted Clinton's supporters for ridicule or insult.

You can bet that comment is a harbinger of what to expect if Clinton wins the presidency.

Yeah, but the thing is, it's already become a meme, like a badge of honor.

Being deplorable to a crusty old establishment, which Hillary Clinton so visibly manifestly represents, has always been edgy, a symbol of rebellion. So it was ineffective at conveying her message at best. At worst, she's just doing more of the "brand reversal" that Scott Adams was talking about.

Hillary's just so lame that she can't make anything go without the entire weight of the establishment bending over for her and the cracks becoming very, very evident.

That's why I don't think she'll be quite the catastrophe a lot of people seem to think, though she will be bad, no doubt.

I do not agree with Baumann throwing in the towel assuming an HRC win... that said his HRC POTUS survival guide is insightful and a must read for every red pill neoman in the USA for as long as they reside here.

http://thesovereigninvestor.com/asset-pr...residency/

Survivor’s Guide to Another Clinton Presidency
ASSET PROTECTION
September 5, 2016

Let’s Face Facts

Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president of the United States. It gives me no joy to say that. But Donald Trump will not win sufficient votes in enough states to become president. I stake my reputation on it. (I don’t think he even wants to be president.)

What does that mean for you — and your assets, investments and living standards? That’s the only thing that matters at this point. Here’s my take:

There will be no substantive change on anything important under a Clinton presidency. Forget campaign promises designed to appease Bernie supporters. She’s not an economic radical, and even if she were, she won’t get anything out of a Republican House … except, perhaps, things Republicans also want.
What are those things? It depends on which Republicans we’re talking about. I predict that the Trump-aligned right wing will be humbled and the GOP establishment will reassert its authority. That establishment shares with Clinton a desire for a much more aggressive foreign policy, for some infrastructure spending, for corporate tax reform — and above all, for maintaining the broader status quo in the U.S. corporate and financial sectors.
That means we can expect more foreign military adventures and domestic spying, an attempt to lower U.S. corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes, and some federal investment in our crumbling infrastructure. That implies a larger federal deficit, probably based on long-term borrowing.
On the other hand, the root causes of our ongoing economic malaise — the combination of a Fed-led, finance-oriented approach to economic policy, an overstrong dollar and an unwillingness to harm the short-term interests of Wall Street — will remain unaddressed.
Ergo, extremely low interest rates will continue, encouraging more borrowing by everyone from the federal government to ordinary households. The urgently needed rebalancing of the financial sector — reducing debt loads, discouraging asset speculation and redirecting capital into productive, job-creating investment — won’t happen. Instead, private sector debt — mainly corporate — will continue to accumulate, whilst the real economy stagnates. Prices in crony-capitalist sectors (health care, I’m looking at you) will continue to rise. That will squeeze people living on fixed incomes even harder.
Then there are the social consequences of maintaining the status quo. It’s pretty hot out there on the streets … and it’s going to get hotter. After eight years of promises and no action under Obama, the poor and minorities aren’t going to be patient for long just because a woman is in the White House.
Sounds Like (It’s Time for) a Plan

If there’s one thing on which most of us agree, it’s that we have to take matters into our own hands — politicians won’t solve our problems for us. So what does a personal “solution” to President Hillary Rodham Clinton look like?

First, assume that the real economy — production and consumption of goods and services that people want and can afford to buy with their current incomes, not debt — will remain extremely weak. Real incomes won’t grow, and U.S. consumers won’t be able to sustain the global economy. The threat of asset bubbles will remain strong, since there won’t be other sources of yield. That will reinforce the ongoing long-term accumulation of debt overhang in the U.S. and global economy.

Second, assume opportunities for investment yield will remain limited and restricted to short-term bull markets, specific growth stocks and dependable long-term holdings. Overall, though, those yields won’t be spectacular. That implies that folks living on fixed incomes will continue to suffer. Ordinary 401(k)s and IRAs will muddle along without much growth, and people will be tempted to take capital distributions earlier than they should in order to survive retirement.

Third, assume that the chance of a sudden collapse of the global debt system is about one in two in the next four years and three in four in the next eight.

Based on that, the savvy planner will:

Pursue a balanced investment strategy like the one I recommend in the March 2016 issue of The Bauman Letter. That involves diversifying into rare tangible assets, as well as acquiring an appropriate stock of bullion — 10% long term, 3% to 5% speculative holdings.
Set up a self-directed IRA, as I explain in the May 2015 issue of The Bauman Letter, and use it to diversify your holdings away from U.S. equities. A self-directed IRA allows you to invest offshore and in foreign currencies.
Acquire an offshore financial account either in your own name or through an offshore asset-protection vehicle like a trust or limited liability company (LLC). Note that this isn’t just a way to hedge against wealth confiscation … it’s also a way to move assets out of the dollar, which is critical.
Now if those recommendations look similar to those I’ve made over the last few years, they absolutely are, because nothing substantive is going to change under a Clinton administration.

Except, of course, the risk level … after all, the longer things carry on as they are, the worse it will get.

Heh, "adorable deplorables."
From Scott Adams :

Quote:Regarding the basket of deplorables comment by Clinton, I don’t see it making a huge difference in the race. The people she insulted with the comment weren’t voting for her anyway, and everyone else agrees that deplorable people are deplorable.

Also, “basket of deplorables” is such a cute nickname that the targets of that insult have humorously adopted it as their own label, or so I observe on Twitter. Instead of demonizing the “deplorables,” it made them sound kinda cute. Let’s call them adorable deplorables. I think Clinton’s funny label added humor to the situation and accidentally neutered the “dark” branding she was trying to spray-paint on that same set of Americans for the past month. But in the end, it won’t be the thing that matters most. It might move the polls 1%.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/15022006934...-from-2009

(09-10-2016 09:39 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  Where is Roosh?

Not sure.
Yet extra points for keeping Cernovich in his signature plaid shirt.

even better, its only 16 days before Trump gets to confront her in person about "basket of deplorables"

YUGE if true: From Ricky Vaughan's Twitter page. No idea of source I don't know how to use 4chan

^^^If this is true, my god it's over, except for voter fraud.

I believe it, Clinton campaign might legit be desperate. These people know what is up, the lackluster rally turnouts, Hillary's lack of energy and charisma, the lies. Without unprecedented media support she simply would not be in the race.

(09-10-2016 02:33 PM)komatiite Wrote:  YUGE if true: From Ricky Vaughan's Twitter page. No idea of source I don't know how to use 4chan

As much as I'd love for this to be true (and the story's very believable), I can't just believe this.

I believe it. She has had several appearances where it looks like she just woke up after sleeping for hours. She is being drugged so her campaign can work around her. Fucking hilarious.
Don't ever underestimate Trump. He must have the best intel team ever. The man is pile driving her into the grave. All hail Emperor Trump.

Brother Majeed, I agree, it seems too good to be true. It may just be a little Fan Fiction for us Trumpophiles!

Speaking of Assange/Leaks, I have been enjoying the sight of seeing his reputation completely reverse in left and right wing circles, years ago he was Public Enemy #1 of Conservatives and a Leftist Hero, look at this piece by #NeverTrump National Review Editor Rich Lowry (frequent Kelly File guest):

Quote:Julian Assange Is Still a Creep
The WikiLeaks founder could score an invite to CPAC next year.
By RICH LOWRY September 08, 2016

If Julian Assange plays this right, he just might score an invitation to CPAC next year.

The notorious WikiLeaks founder would have to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference remotely because he is still holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, avoiding a rape investigation in Sweden and fearing extradition to the United States for his malicious exposure of state secrets. But, surely, the details could be worked out.

Assange is now treated as a respectable figure by some elements of the right because he despises Hillary Clinton and promises to torpedo her campaign with new email exposures. Never mind that he has done everything within his power to damage the interests of the United States, in league with his quasi-ally, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Rarely has “strange new respect" been stranger.
It’s like conservatives embracing Kim Philby, the infamous British double agent who defected to the Soviet Union in the 1960s, if he promised to produce damaging information about LBJ before the 1964 election. Or welcoming Philip Agee, the anti-CIA activist from the 1970s who was allied with Russian and Cuban intelligence, if he demonstrated enough hostility to Jimmy Carter.

The enemy of my enemy (or more properly, my domestic political opponent) can still be a reprehensible creep, and that’s what Assange is.

But Sean Hannity of Fox News has a newfound soft spot for the accused rapist and scourge of America. A couple of years ago, Hannity tore into the Obama administration for not doing more to capture the WikiLeaks founder, and sympathized with the contention that Assange was the equivalent of a terrorist. Now, the host says he was “conflicted” about Assange back then, and he had qualms about his work only because “I believe in privacy.”

This makes it sound as though WikiLeaks published a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Instead, Assange dumped, among other things, what the Defense Department called “the largest leak of classified documents in its history.”

Hannity was outraged a few years ago that the leaks potentially endangered U.S. allies in Afghanistan — the Taliban vowed to track down named U.S. informants — but now hails Assange for exposing “how corrupt, dishonest and phony our government is.”

Assange puts his agenda in more starkly anti-American terms. He has a poisonous, Chomskyite view of the United States as a dastardly “empire,” bending the world to its will and persecuting brave dissidents like none other than Julian Assange.

When he started out, Assange was committed to exposing the world’s genuinely pernicious states. He said he was going to criticize “highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia” and warned a newspaper in Moscow of the damaging information he had acquired about Russia.

Assange is no longer in that line of work. He has fallen into the arms of Putin as he pursues his vendetta against the United States and its former secretary of state, whom, it so happens, Putin will never forgive for criticizing Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections.

The not especially telegenic WikiLeaks founder somehow briefly landed an RT show, and it was his idea for National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to seek refuge in Russia. The New York Times recently documented how Assange’s leaks tend to track with Russian interests.

The avowed champion of transparency and free speech told the Times he doesn’t go out of his way to criticize a Russian government that kills journalists because to do so is “boring.”

Interfering in a U.S. election is apparently much more interesting. U.S. officials believe that Russia was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee that WikiLeaks used to such effect around the time of the Democratic convention. The promised additional WikiLeaks exposures may well be the handiwork of the Russians, as well.

It is Hillary’s own fault that she is vulnerable to the likes of Assange. Her secrecy, corrupt practices and dishonesty make her an ideal target. Yet there is a world of difference between Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch who has done so much through litigation in the U.S. courts to expose Clinton, and Assange, a certified America-hater whose work is likely enabled by Russian intelligence.

There was a time when everyone could see the distinction, but that was before 2016, a year of strange, not to say loathsome, bedfellows.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...z4JtJKs9st
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

They could look past his 'rapey' past when he was releasing leaks on the Bush administration but now that he is helping Trump he is now a total CREEP! I am loving this, and I also appreciate how Hannity will not only interview Assange but he spends a solid ten minutes every day on his radio show bitching about how #NeverTrumpers like the NRO are actively working to get HRC elected. Very amusing -- you can tell Hannity is very conflicted about how he has embraced him but at least he is up front about it.



Edit-added Assange on PATRIOT Radio's Hannity show from Thursday. Youtube clip.

Hey Deplorable RVFers, never give up the fight and we shall beat HRC!

Someone put Grandma to bed, less she start WW3

(09-10-2016 04:27 PM)rpg Wrote:  All hail Emperor Trump.

Praise be.