The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Invade the World, Invite the World
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Steve Guest writes on The Daily Caller:

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom,” on Thursday, Baldwin asked [Trump strategist Stephen] Miller to respond to Clinton’s allegation that Trump is not qualified to be president.

Miller replied, “We obviously agree with Bernie Sanders that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president.”

Pivoting, Miller said, “But I have to say honestly I feel bad for Bernie Sanders supporters, and I’ll tell you why. Thanks to superdelegates, the Democratic Party is on the verge of nominating the most pro-war, pro-Wall Street lawmaker in the modern history of the Democratic Party.”

“I mean, that’s amazing. Think about it. You have a candidate in Hillary who is running on a pro-war platform about what she did in Libya, about what she’s doing in Syria, about the toppling of the Egyptian regime and the military of course took back control, who’s running on a pro-wall Street, pro-war agenda. That’s not the right fit for the Democratic Party or the country.”

“OK, let’s not discuss, I don’t want to argue Benghazi with you. I know there’s a lot of pieces there,” Baldwin said. “Just back though on the question as to whether or not [Clinton] thinks Donald Trump is qualified, can you directly respond to that?”

Miller replied, “Well, like I said, Bernie Sanders is correct and Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president.”

Baldwin followed up again, “Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president?”

Laughing, Miller said, “Of course not. See, look at her judgement. Hillary Clinton went to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton’s decisions in Libya unleashed an operating base for ISIS that will be a scourge of terrorism against the entire Western world. Hillary Clinton’s platform is, I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are. That is a recipe for disaster.”

 
Hide 107 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. HRC: Invade the world, invite the world, and tell all the world’s men to use the women’s restrooms.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Invade the world, invite the world, infibulate the world.

    Or, Invade the world, invite the world... to Vermont.

    That'll get the Bernbots' attention.
  2. OT

    It actually uses the words “catfishing” and “Haven Monahan”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/uva-jackie-email-liar-new-evidence-lawsuit/

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Right, I posted about Haven Monahan in the previous thread. It looks to me that Dean Eramo's lawyers managed to snooker Jackie's lawyers into accessing the account, this sounds like conspiracy, fraud, destruction of evidence, etc., etc. Not sure if perjury would apply, but I would expect a breach of ethics. IANAL, but I should think that law firm is in trouble right now.

    Of course, the billboard conclusion is that Jackie must have fabricated Haven Monahan, how else would Jackie's law firm have his password.
  3. Great attack line. Could you imagine a GOPe candidate using that line? Nice call out to BernieBros reminding them that Hillary! excludes them and their views from the Party, which is all anti-White male*, and pro-Wall Street.

    *Those White males without money, power, and connections of course. Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are most definitely welcome as is Warren Buffett and every Hedgie in Connecticut.

  4. I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Stephen Miller earned his day’s pay with that interview.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Stephen Miller earned his day’s pay with that interview.

    Direct link:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIuZgFLzSE0&feature=youtu.be

    I just watched the interview... it's even better than the excerpts. He just eviscerated the Clinton position. Three cheers for (((Stephen Miller))), righteous Jew!

    BTW Did you know that Miller is the third most common Jewish name in America? I learned that it was very common a long time ago (actually I think some guy called Miller told me it was the most common), but here is the evidence:

    http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm

    This election is going to be a landslide in Trump's favor. One reason is that Trump is brilliant at hiring. Having created a billion dollar company he has not been able to do everything himself and by necessity has to have gotten extremely good at hiring exceptional staff and delegating to them. Miller is an example of this, Manafort is another. Hell, Lewandowski did a bang up job getting Trump to the point where Manafort could consolidate.

    The second reason is that now Trump is the presumptive nominee, soon to be the actual nominee, the media has to give Trump and his people air time. And being able to actually advocate for the people instead of the likes of Soros, it's going to be devastating. By the time the election rolls around, the Democrats are going to be trying to repeal the 22nd amendment because they have no confidence in Clinton.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary's "experience", i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump's campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.

    I have posted this elsewhere but it's worth repeating:

    A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton's corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas's first "lady";
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a "sure thing" presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long "special relation" between the UK and the USA;
    (10) A bit later her incredibly stupid "reset button" gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called "Arab Spring" which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
    (15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her "foundation" had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.
    , @Anonymous
    10,000 Western troops in Libya is a good thing. They can impound the boats and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from going to Sicily annually. This will be one of the best military deployments possible.
  5. Hillary Clinton’s platform is, I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are. That is a recipe for disaster.”

    I understand why most of the GOP politicians don’t steal your “invade the world, invite the world” slogan, but why doesn’t Trump start using it? It is accurate and easy for voters to understand.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    I understand why most of the GOP politicians don’t steal your “invade the world, invite the world” slogan, but why doesn’t Trump start using it?
     
    Its only May. I fully expect that in five months, we'll all have heard Trump use that phase. Its too good not to use.
    , @MC
    It could be that if the "slogan" is too catchy, and people only hear Trump's people saying it, they begin to associate those words with Trump, not Hillary. That would be dumb, but then so are voters. And Trump has a sixth sense about that sort of thing.
  6. Stephen Miller has a great future ahead of him I predict.

  7. @countenance
    OT

    It actually uses the words "catfishing" and "Haven Monahan"

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/uva-jackie-email-liar-new-evidence-lawsuit/

    Right, I posted about Haven Monahan in the previous thread. It looks to me that Dean Eramo’s lawyers managed to snooker Jackie’s lawyers into accessing the account, this sounds like conspiracy, fraud, destruction of evidence, etc., etc. Not sure if perjury would apply, but I would expect a breach of ethics. IANAL, but I should think that law firm is in trouble right now.

    Of course, the billboard conclusion is that Jackie must have fabricated Haven Monahan, how else would Jackie’s law firm have his password.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    It is possible, however, that Jackie herself accessed the Yahoo! account, while on her law firm's system, and that her attorneys were unaware of what she had done. If they did it, and then lied about it to opposing counsel, let alone to the Court, then, yes, it is patently unethical, and they are subject to professional discipline, at a minimum.
  8. Why does Miller hate America?

  9. Mr Miller is obviously well-read.

    OT

    Guy with Turkish name stabs four women shoppers in Hampton, Middlesex.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/20/man-arrested-after-multiple-stabbings-in-sainsburys-car-park-hampton-london

    “Police said the most seriously injured of the women was aged 62, while the others were 67, 71 and 53. The arrested man is understood to be Ethem Aydin Orhan, who is from the Hampton area.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600770/Four-women-stabbed-man-goes-knife-rampage-suburban-London-Sainsbury-s.html

    I wonder if all the victims are white Brits? Still, move along, nothing to see here …

    • Replies: @Clyde

    I wonder if all the victims are white Brits?
     
    I say yes from the info in the UK Daily Mail account. Blame this on sudden Jihad syndrome.
  10. I think this whole idea/rhetorical flourish that X, Y or Z is not qualified to be President is dangerous. That’s a step down from saying about voters who don’t vote your way that they are not qualified to vote. Your Constitution establishes the exact qualifications to be President, the rest is up to the voters. Once you accept that someone can “disqualify” a candidate because of his positions, rather than simply not vote him in, it won’t be long before you have someone mandating ideological tests before he can run for office. It’s not like there is some sort of precedent for the sort of person who becomes President. They haven’t all been military men, or occupied high office for many years, or been successful businessmen etc. If anyone wants to argue that Trump or even Hillary are not qualified to be President, then they have to accept that, to the extent that custom or precedent established a sort of minimalistic profile for presidential material, it all went out the window with Barack Obama. Arguably, the sentimentalist rot started earlier, with JFK’s election. As always, it’s the feelz that lead the way towards dumbing down.

    • Agree: gruff
    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    It's a rhetorical flourish, not much more. It's another way of saying, "Her positions are stupid and she would make a bad president." But I agree that it is a silly way of phrasing it.
    , @iSteveFan
    Very well put. Incidentally disqualifying someone because of their positions has been in effect for quite a while. That is why Trump has caused so much commotion.

    You are not supposed to be able to get this close to the presidency if you are opposed to free trade and open borders. Those are a couple of issues that the elite would like to disqualify any candidate for not holding the correct position. Trump's success despite his views on those items has sent the establishment into a tizzy.

    , @David
    A true and perfectly expressed comment. Bravo.
  11. I look forward to Steve’s appointment to a position in the Trump administration. I’d say a policy-making position, but I think there’s a big opening for “noticing” positions.

  12. I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Not likely it will amount to anything more than the cosmetic bombing of ISIS this ordered by this administration.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And yet the alt-right has deluded itself into the belief Obama is letting Mossad call the shots and Trump – who heartily thanks Sheldon for the $100 million and Jared Kushner for approving of his AIPAC speech – is anti-Israel.

    You boys have some nerve saying Adorno’s classification of anti-semitism as a mental illness was wrong.

    • Replies: @fnn

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
     
    Of course French Jewish neocon Bernard-Henri Lévy was the guy who got the ball rolling on the Western intervention in Libya. Was he in on the plot?
    , @neutral
    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling. He convinced Sarkozy that the Arab Spring was the "right side of history" and such arguments are easily accepted by the likes of Obama.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most - Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don't think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome, @Aschwin
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews. Besides a whole range of apolitical pathologies such as schizophrenia, Munchausen syndrom or anorexia, there is also "anti-Semitism".
  13. It sounds like Stephen Miller would be a great president. But keep in mind he’s not Trump.

    Half the time, Trump sounds like Pat Buchanan. The other half, he sounds more neocon than neocon, more like a foreign policy griffon than a hawk. Paleo cons selectively hear the former, liberals the latter. Who is the real Trump? What would he do? I don’t think Trump even knows the answer to that question.

    He’s probably not going to win, but if he does, prepare to be disappointed on foreign policy.

    • Replies: @timothy
    I'm curious why this comment isn't getting approved.
  14. This is gonna be great. Trump and his people are going to humiliate Hillary for the next six months and then she’s gonna lose.

    • Replies: @anon
    I think she'll drop out.
  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Slick Willie was governor of Arkansas prior to becoming president, a state with less than 3M people, hardly training for dealing with Wherever-stan. Obama was a big deal ‘community organizer’ and minor state politician before he finagled his way into the Senate where he did nothing but immediately run again. Were any of our recent presidents really ‘qualified’, using some stringent criteria? Hillary has hung around a lot of places but seems to have a talent for doing just the wrong thing and botching everything. Would you go to a doctor whose patients all die suddenly?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Bush the Elder was a Congressman, head of the CIA, and VP before winning in 1988. Governors tend to make better presidents than Congress critters; they actually have to do something other than talk, e.g., Chuck Schumer.
  16. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    “OK, let’s not discuss, I don’t want to argue Benghazi with you. I know there’s a lot of pieces there,” Baldwin said.

    What a jingoistic attitude.
    Lives of four Americans, quite distinguished and patriotic they be, is valuable,
    lives of thousands Libyans — oh, those aborigines, they do not matter.
    (Deleted expletive) humanitarians.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Arabs aren't aborigines, not that far west.
  17. MC says:

    That interview is amazing:

    “Is Hillary qualified to be president?”

    “No, and here’s why..”

    “Please no talking about actual issues please. I want to focus on sound bites about whether Trump personally is saying that she’s unqualified.”

    “Well, she’s not qualified, because…”

    “Nope, too much substance. Let’s try this, could you just say something like, ‘Donald Trump thinks Hillary’s unqualified because she’s a woman.’ Something like that?”

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
  18. @SPMoore8
    Right, I posted about Haven Monahan in the previous thread. It looks to me that Dean Eramo's lawyers managed to snooker Jackie's lawyers into accessing the account, this sounds like conspiracy, fraud, destruction of evidence, etc., etc. Not sure if perjury would apply, but I would expect a breach of ethics. IANAL, but I should think that law firm is in trouble right now.

    Of course, the billboard conclusion is that Jackie must have fabricated Haven Monahan, how else would Jackie's law firm have his password.

    It is possible, however, that Jackie herself accessed the Yahoo! account, while on her law firm’s system, and that her attorneys were unaware of what she had done. If they did it, and then lied about it to opposing counsel, let alone to the Court, then, yes, it is patently unethical, and they are subject to professional discipline, at a minimum.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Thank you. The only way in which Jackie would have accessed the account at her lawyer's office would have been, IMHO, according to some scenario like this:

    Attorney: Jackie, could you drop by the offices today?
    Jackie: OK

    (Later)

    Attorney: We have been getting requests from Dean Eramo's lawyers for all Haven Monahan emails. As your lawyers, we know you created the account, but because of attorney-client privilege, we are not obliged to divulge that information. I'm going out to lunch for a couple of hours, and while I am gone, would you do me a favor and access the Monahan email account, and see if there are any emails there that we are bound to download, print out, copy, and send to Dean Eramo's counsel?

    Jackie: OK

    (two hours later)

    Attorney: Jackie, were you successful in locating any Haven Monahan emails?
    Jackie: No! I didn't find anything! They're all gone!
    Attorney: Good girl!
  19. This interview with Miller is good, an interview with the other Miller would have been more entertaining.

  20. I seriously wonder how Hillary will respond to these criticisms. Really, what does she say?

    And how is it going to feel for the so-called “liberals” who support her to see The Demon Donald Trump impugning her judgment over the exact same things so many liberals have criticized her for? Naked partisanship being what it is, I have no doubt that many will simply defend her reckless military adventures. But there will be a sizable number who are going to be very uncomfortable, even or especially in front of their friends, backing Hillary on these issues. These latter will have to ask themselves, How can The Demon be so right?

    It’s going to be a pretty amazing campaign season.

    • Replies: @timothy
    Hillary's response will be that Trump was in favor of Libyan intervention at the time, which he, in fact, was. He probably didn't put much thought into his statements but wanted to attack Obama for "dithering." Then Obama launched some missiles and he changed his tune.

    It's nevertheless heartening that he's now open to American Consertivative-style arguments about foreign policy, but I'm just explaining what the Clinton response will be.
  21. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Miller is terrific. I’ve been watching all of his interviews and speeches, and he’s far smarter than so many of the mediocrities from Conservative Inc.

    From his “epic rant” against Rubio via Breitbart:

    Mass immigration, open borders, amnesty, TPP [Trans-Pacific Trade partnership] and even more globalist trade deals, and the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.

    Understand, everyone listening today: There is a point of no return. It is not far away. It is right in front of you. And if you cross it, there is no going back.

    The ever vigilant Mickey Kaus fears a Trump sell out on immigration, but knowing that Miller is Trump’s primary policy advisor gives me hope.

    http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/27/must-listen-stephen-miller-makes-case-against-marco-rubio-in-epic-rant/

  22. @Immigrant from former USSR

    “OK, let’s not discuss, I don’t want to argue Benghazi with you. I know there’s a lot of pieces there,” Baldwin said.
     
    What a jingoistic attitude.
    Lives of four Americans, quite distinguished and patriotic they be, is valuable,
    lives of thousands Libyans --- oh, those aborigines, they do not matter.
    (Deleted expletive) humanitarians.

    Arabs aren’t aborigines, not that far west.

  23. @countenance
    HRC: Invade the world, invite the world, and tell all the world's men to use the women's restrooms.

    Invade the world, invite the world, infibulate the world.

    Or, Invade the world, invite the world… to Vermont.

    That’ll get the Bernbots’ attention.

  24. I hope someone close to Trump makes a nice donation to ISteve on his behalf. Clearly someone reads this column closely.

    • Replies: @Danindc
    Agree x1000. How have my of these tight wads not cut Steve a check for 500K?
  25. @Barnard

    Hillary Clinton’s platform is, I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are. That is a recipe for disaster.”
     
    I understand why most of the GOP politicians don't steal your "invade the world, invite the world" slogan, but why doesn't Trump start using it? It is accurate and easy for voters to understand.

    I understand why most of the GOP politicians don’t steal your “invade the world, invite the world” slogan, but why doesn’t Trump start using it?

    Its only May. I fully expect that in five months, we’ll all have heard Trump use that phase. Its too good not to use.

  26. @candid_observer
    I seriously wonder how Hillary will respond to these criticisms. Really, what does she say?

    And how is it going to feel for the so-called "liberals" who support her to see The Demon Donald Trump impugning her judgment over the exact same things so many liberals have criticized her for? Naked partisanship being what it is, I have no doubt that many will simply defend her reckless military adventures. But there will be a sizable number who are going to be very uncomfortable, even or especially in front of their friends, backing Hillary on these issues. These latter will have to ask themselves, How can The Demon be so right?

    It's going to be a pretty amazing campaign season.

    Hillary’s response will be that Trump was in favor of Libyan intervention at the time, which he, in fact, was. He probably didn’t put much thought into his statements but wanted to attack Obama for “dithering.” Then Obama launched some missiles and he changed his tune.

    It’s nevertheless heartening that he’s now open to American Consertivative-style arguments about foreign policy, but I’m just explaining what the Clinton response will be.

  27. @Barnard

    Hillary Clinton’s platform is, I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are. That is a recipe for disaster.”
     
    I understand why most of the GOP politicians don't steal your "invade the world, invite the world" slogan, but why doesn't Trump start using it? It is accurate and easy for voters to understand.

    It could be that if the “slogan” is too catchy, and people only hear Trump’s people saying it, they begin to associate those words with Trump, not Hillary. That would be dumb, but then so are voters. And Trump has a sixth sense about that sort of thing.

  28. What Trump is going to force on liberals and the media and the punditry is the exposure of the naked body of identity politics in the left and in the Democratic Party. By virtually all usual measures — with one notable exception — Trump will, on balance, match Hillary along the standard left/right continuum, giving her no traction against him.

    The exception, of course, is immigration. But the objections to him on that score, as always with immigration, are based entirely on the premise that if you oppose immigration in any fashion, it can only be because you are a racist. Remarkably, Trump isn’t even opposed to Affirmative Action, and has, it seems, never said anything about blacks that might be considered racist (imagine how much we would be hearing about it if he had).

    So the utterly deranged opposition he has received from the left and the media is poised on the absurdly narrow point of his problems with immigration in its current form. That really is the sum total of their “argument” against him.

    By exposing the true core of the left/media ideology, Trump is presenting a very clear choice to the American people (and indirectly the larger world): is nothing genuinely important to you other than identity politics? Are all other issues just window dressing to put in front of the one thing you really want to buy and sell: an obsession with who and whom?

  29. @Diversity Heretic
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly--Hillary Clinton's misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Stephen Miller earned his day's pay with that interview.

    Stephen Miller earned his day’s pay with that interview.

    Direct link:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIuZgFLzSE0&feature=youtu.be

    I just watched the interview… it’s even better than the excerpts. He just eviscerated the Clinton position. Three cheers for (((Stephen Miller))), righteous Jew!

    BTW Did you know that Miller is the third most common Jewish name in America? I learned that it was very common a long time ago (actually I think some guy called Miller told me it was the most common), but here is the evidence:

    http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm

    This election is going to be a landslide in Trump’s favor. One reason is that Trump is brilliant at hiring. Having created a billion dollar company he has not been able to do everything himself and by necessity has to have gotten extremely good at hiring exceptional staff and delegating to them. Miller is an example of this, Manafort is another. Hell, Lewandowski did a bang up job getting Trump to the point where Manafort could consolidate.

    The second reason is that now Trump is the presumptive nominee, soon to be the actual nominee, the media has to give Trump and his people air time. And being able to actually advocate for the people instead of the likes of Soros, it’s going to be devastating. By the time the election rolls around, the Democrats are going to be trying to repeal the 22nd amendment because they have no confidence in Clinton.

    • Replies: @Thea
    In one of Phillip Roth's books, the main character's aunt always reads the Orbituaries to see if any Jews died. He wrote something to the effective of "she even counted the Millers."
  30. @Romanian
    I think this whole idea/rhetorical flourish that X, Y or Z is not qualified to be President is dangerous. That's a step down from saying about voters who don't vote your way that they are not qualified to vote. Your Constitution establishes the exact qualifications to be President, the rest is up to the voters. Once you accept that someone can "disqualify" a candidate because of his positions, rather than simply not vote him in, it won't be long before you have someone mandating ideological tests before he can run for office. It's not like there is some sort of precedent for the sort of person who becomes President. They haven't all been military men, or occupied high office for many years, or been successful businessmen etc. If anyone wants to argue that Trump or even Hillary are not qualified to be President, then they have to accept that, to the extent that custom or precedent established a sort of minimalistic profile for presidential material, it all went out the window with Barack Obama. Arguably, the sentimentalist rot started earlier, with JFK's election. As always, it's the feelz that lead the way towards dumbing down.

    It’s a rhetorical flourish, not much more. It’s another way of saying, “Her positions are stupid and she would make a bad president.” But I agree that it is a silly way of phrasing it.

  31. It’s nevertheless heartening that he’s now open to American Consertivative-style arguments about foreign policy,

    Is that why Trump’s taking 100 million shekels from Adelson?

  32. Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller……. He was a key staffer for Senator Jeff Sessions on immigration and other matters. He moved from Sessions to Trump. I have seen him speak a few times as Trump’s warm up act at Trump rallies.

  33. @D. K.
    It is possible, however, that Jackie herself accessed the Yahoo! account, while on her law firm's system, and that her attorneys were unaware of what she had done. If they did it, and then lied about it to opposing counsel, let alone to the Court, then, yes, it is patently unethical, and they are subject to professional discipline, at a minimum.

    Thank you. The only way in which Jackie would have accessed the account at her lawyer’s office would have been, IMHO, according to some scenario like this:

    Attorney: Jackie, could you drop by the offices today?
    Jackie: OK

    (Later)

    Attorney: We have been getting requests from Dean Eramo’s lawyers for all Haven Monahan emails. As your lawyers, we know you created the account, but because of attorney-client privilege, we are not obliged to divulge that information. I’m going out to lunch for a couple of hours, and while I am gone, would you do me a favor and access the Monahan email account, and see if there are any emails there that we are bound to download, print out, copy, and send to Dean Eramo’s counsel?

    Jackie: OK

    (two hours later)

    Attorney: Jackie, were you successful in locating any Haven Monahan emails?
    Jackie: No! I didn’t find anything! They’re all gone!
    Attorney: Good girl!

    • Replies: @D. K.
    I can imagine her in conference with her attorney(s), and being told, in passing, that the Haven Monaghan Yahoo! account's contents will undoubtedly be sought by the plaintiff's attorney(s), through a court order-- and having that realization cause her to log into that Yahoo! account to tidy up, as best she could, before even leaving the premises. As a former lawyer, I find it more plausible that this young woman, with her known track record, would undertake such a purge, as opposed to her lawyer(s) risking sanctions, or even disbarment.
  34. @Anonymous Nephew
    Mr Miller is obviously well-read.


    OT

    Guy with Turkish name stabs four women shoppers in Hampton, Middlesex.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/20/man-arrested-after-multiple-stabbings-in-sainsburys-car-park-hampton-london

    "Police said the most seriously injured of the women was aged 62, while the others were 67, 71 and 53. The arrested man is understood to be Ethem Aydin Orhan, who is from the Hampton area."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600770/Four-women-stabbed-man-goes-knife-rampage-suburban-London-Sainsbury-s.html

    I wonder if all the victims are white Brits? Still, move along, nothing to see here ...

    I wonder if all the victims are white Brits?

    I say yes from the info in the UK Daily Mail account. Blame this on sudden Jihad syndrome.

  35. Junebug, that’s a good point, but easily judo-flipped: “yeah, I was wrong. But I was just some guy in the media. What was Hillary’s excuse? ‘Oh I’m just Secretary of State, how can I be expected to know this stuff?’?” Trump can say he fell off his donkey on the way to Damascus and realized Hillary is a disaster. What’s Hillary supposed to say? She’s the disaster.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    Why is this reply of Svigor not linked-to the post of junebug's that it (Svigor's post) is a reply to?
  36. Stephen Miller has a bit of shitlord in him, the hint he showed during the lacrosse incident. I almost pity that someone like him was probably a little too caught up in Student Government during his time at Duke instead of using his time to really lead a pushback against administrators

    It’s sad, we did have Greeks as student government presidents and even Greeks in a few of the important posts, but the guys who did this shit reminded me a lot of the standard cucks of the Republican party. A lot of Dean Vernon-ing going on regardless.

    I almost want to say it’s better that he was a wasted talent during his college years. He might have gotten too much ass and not be motivated enough to do this stuff.

  37. @Thea
    I hope someone close to Trump makes a nice donation to ISteve on his behalf. Clearly someone reads this column closely.

    Agree x1000. How have my of these tight wads not cut Steve a check for 500K?

  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Unbeknownst to 99.9999% of Americans there is this “thing” called AFRICOM.

    See, they’ve divided up the earth into precincts for their world police.

    We are under NORTHCOM, btw.

    So they are tearing up Africa for the foreseeable future, yeah. Libya? Hell yeah.

    The Ben Rhodes scandal informed us that the big papers no longer have foreign bureaus. They can’t afford them. So now the MIC can just do whatever it wants overseas without any bad press showing up here at home.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Unbeknownst to 99.9999% of Americans there is this “thing” called AFRICOM.

    That's interesting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command
    , @neutral
    If America has sliced up the world (into Orwellian looking zones) for it to rule, then should it not be time that the entire world be allowed to vote in US elections ? The neocons keep saying how they want to topple regimes that don't allow people to vote, but they run the most unaccountable regime of them all.
  39. @Anonymous
    Unbeknownst to 99.9999% of Americans there is this "thing" called AFRICOM.

    See, they've divided up the earth into precincts for their world police.

    We are under NORTHCOM, btw.

    So they are tearing up Africa for the foreseeable future, yeah. Libya? Hell yeah.

    The Ben Rhodes scandal informed us that the big papers no longer have foreign bureaus. They can't afford them. So now the MIC can just do whatever it wants overseas without any bad press showing up here at home.

    Unbeknownst to 99.9999% of Americans there is this “thing” called AFRICOM.

    That’s interesting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command

  40. @timothy
    It sounds like Stephen Miller would be a great president. But keep in mind he's not Trump.

    Half the time, Trump sounds like Pat Buchanan. The other half, he sounds more neocon than neocon, more like a foreign policy griffon than a hawk. Paleo cons selectively hear the former, liberals the latter. Who is the real Trump? What would he do? I don't think Trump even knows the answer to that question.

    He's probably not going to win, but if he does, prepare to be disappointed on foreign policy.

    I’m curious why this comment isn’t getting approved.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I'm curious how my computer displays comments that haven't been approved.
    , @antipater_1
    Please don't complain about the host. It makes you look weak. Besides, we can hardly expect that Steve's 10,000 sweatshop south Asians won't make an occasional mistake.
  41. Hildabeast is just as incompetent as Angela Merkel and Dilma Rousseff. The world does not need more Left Wing women in positions of power.

  42. A convenient reinterpretation of Putnam’s famous findings about diversity:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/dont-blame-diversity-for-distrust.html?_r=0

    Wrong, but worth thinking about, as this NY Times piece is destined to become the new “settled science”.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yeah, taking a quick look at this "study", it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of the same points Putnam made, but with a careful effort to blame all the problems with trust on whites.

    If non-whites lack trust in any setting, it's because whites have made them unequal, so of course they lack trust. They bring that lack of trust, forced on them by whites, to diverse neighborhoods as well. If whites are less trusting in diverse neighborhoods, then it's because whites are intolerant racists, and need to be reeducated.

    Nothing is said of the crime rates in diverse communities, of course, and how that might affect trust -- but if anybody brings it up, I'm sure it's because of all the white racism.

    In the current year, this is called "science".

    , @AnotherDad

    A convenient reinterpretation of Putnam’s famous findings about diversity:
     
    Gosh, i'll say.

    They don't post their numbers, but what they are claiming is basically that diverse neighborhoods have less trust mostly because "diverse" means more people--blacks, Hispanics--who have lower levels of trust. (You'd think Putnam would have been aware of and corrected for that.)

    This is spun as "disadvantage" ... with of course "discrimination" and racists, like white police making and "hostile rhetorics"--i.e. Trump--all making an appearance.

    But then they admit Putnam's finding that even just among whites diversity make trust "slightly lower". If the point is to say that Putnam's wrong because the effect isn't very strong--again no numbers--then that suggests that whites are pretty tolerant. (Or I would say "suckers".) But these gals instead say ... intolerance! racism!

    But what do they say:

    Finally, our only finding related to diversity confirms a familiar story about white intolerance toward minorities. Whites who live among more blacks and Latinos report slightly lower trust than those who live in predominately white communities. This is a far cry from the claim that the minorities who are diversifying the nation are responsible for declining levels of trust.
     
    Amazing. Essentially they claim to find that the diversity trust hit is mostly because NAMs have lower trust ... but then claim that minorities diversifying the nation aren't responsible for declining levels of trust ... exactly what they have in fact just claimed!

    They claim Putnam's wrong because the trust hit isn't with whites who have only slightly lower trust in diverse neighborhoods. Which actually shows that whites are pretty darn trusting and not very racist. And claim it shows that whites are intolerant and racist!

    Holy cow. Their own claim is the numbers show it's just more minorities driving down trust and white people are pretty trusting under diversity, their conclusion is minorities aren't driving down trust and white people are racists!


    Let me try some social psychology:
    When you combine:
    -- leftist ideologue
    -- social "scientist"
    -- minority
    -- female
    ... you can pretty much forget about anything resembling logic or rationality.
  43. @International Jew
    A convenient reinterpretation of Putnam's famous findings about diversity:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/dont-blame-diversity-for-distrust.html?_r=0

    Wrong, but worth thinking about, as this NY Times piece is destined to become the new "settled science".

    Yeah, taking a quick look at this “study”, it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of the same points Putnam made, but with a careful effort to blame all the problems with trust on whites.

    If non-whites lack trust in any setting, it’s because whites have made them unequal, so of course they lack trust. They bring that lack of trust, forced on them by whites, to diverse neighborhoods as well. If whites are less trusting in diverse neighborhoods, then it’s because whites are intolerant racists, and need to be reeducated.

    Nothing is said of the crime rates in diverse communities, of course, and how that might affect trust — but if anybody brings it up, I’m sure it’s because of all the white racism.

    In the current year, this is called “science”.

  44. @International Jew
    A convenient reinterpretation of Putnam's famous findings about diversity:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/dont-blame-diversity-for-distrust.html?_r=0

    Wrong, but worth thinking about, as this NY Times piece is destined to become the new "settled science".

    A convenient reinterpretation of Putnam’s famous findings about diversity:

    Gosh, i’ll say.

    They don’t post their numbers, but what they are claiming is basically that diverse neighborhoods have less trust mostly because “diverse” means more people–blacks, Hispanics–who have lower levels of trust. (You’d think Putnam would have been aware of and corrected for that.)

    This is spun as “disadvantage” … with of course “discrimination” and racists, like white police making and “hostile rhetorics”–i.e. Trump–all making an appearance.

    But then they admit Putnam’s finding that even just among whites diversity make trust “slightly lower”. If the point is to say that Putnam’s wrong because the effect isn’t very strong–again no numbers–then that suggests that whites are pretty tolerant. (Or I would say “suckers”.) But these gals instead say … intolerance! racism!

    But what do they say:

    Finally, our only finding related to diversity confirms a familiar story about white intolerance toward minorities. Whites who live among more blacks and Latinos report slightly lower trust than those who live in predominately white communities. This is a far cry from the claim that the minorities who are diversifying the nation are responsible for declining levels of trust.

    Amazing. Essentially they claim to find that the diversity trust hit is mostly because NAMs have lower trust … but then claim that minorities diversifying the nation aren’t responsible for declining levels of trust … exactly what they have in fact just claimed!

    They claim Putnam’s wrong because the trust hit isn’t with whites who have only slightly lower trust in diverse neighborhoods. Which actually shows that whites are pretty darn trusting and not very racist. And claim it shows that whites are intolerant and racist!

    Holy cow. Their own claim is the numbers show it’s just more minorities driving down trust and white people are pretty trusting under diversity, their conclusion is minorities aren’t driving down trust and white people are racists!

    Let me try some social psychology:
    When you combine:
    — leftist ideologue
    — social “scientist”
    — minority
    — female
    … you can pretty much forget about anything resembling logic or rationality.

  45. @SPMoore8
    Thank you. The only way in which Jackie would have accessed the account at her lawyer's office would have been, IMHO, according to some scenario like this:

    Attorney: Jackie, could you drop by the offices today?
    Jackie: OK

    (Later)

    Attorney: We have been getting requests from Dean Eramo's lawyers for all Haven Monahan emails. As your lawyers, we know you created the account, but because of attorney-client privilege, we are not obliged to divulge that information. I'm going out to lunch for a couple of hours, and while I am gone, would you do me a favor and access the Monahan email account, and see if there are any emails there that we are bound to download, print out, copy, and send to Dean Eramo's counsel?

    Jackie: OK

    (two hours later)

    Attorney: Jackie, were you successful in locating any Haven Monahan emails?
    Jackie: No! I didn't find anything! They're all gone!
    Attorney: Good girl!

    I can imagine her in conference with her attorney(s), and being told, in passing, that the Haven Monaghan Yahoo! account’s contents will undoubtedly be sought by the plaintiff’s attorney(s), through a court order– and having that realization cause her to log into that Yahoo! account to tidy up, as best she could, before even leaving the premises. As a former lawyer, I find it more plausible that this young woman, with her known track record, would undertake such a purge, as opposed to her lawyer(s) risking sanctions, or even disbarment.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    D. K., I much appreciate your expert and generous interpretation. The reason I remain skeptical is that, if I were her attorney, and having had such a conference, the last thing I'd let her do is access one of my firm's computers to go about her monkey business.
  46. fnn says:
    @The Undiscovered Jew
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Not likely it will amount to anything more than the cosmetic bombing of ISIS this ordered by this administration.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And yet the alt-right has deluded itself into the belief Obama is letting Mossad call the shots and Trump - who heartily thanks Sheldon for the $100 million and Jared Kushner for approving of his AIPAC speech - is anti-Israel.

    You boys have some nerve saying Adorno's classification of anti-semitism as a mental illness was wrong.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Of course French Jewish neocon Bernard-Henri Lévy was the guy who got the ball rolling on the Western intervention in Libya. Was he in on the plot?

  47. @anonymous
    Slick Willie was governor of Arkansas prior to becoming president, a state with less than 3M people, hardly training for dealing with Wherever-stan. Obama was a big deal 'community organizer' and minor state politician before he finagled his way into the Senate where he did nothing but immediately run again. Were any of our recent presidents really 'qualified', using some stringent criteria? Hillary has hung around a lot of places but seems to have a talent for doing just the wrong thing and botching everything. Would you go to a doctor whose patients all die suddenly?

    Bush the Elder was a Congressman, head of the CIA, and VP before winning in 1988. Governors tend to make better presidents than Congress critters; they actually have to do something other than talk, e.g., Chuck Schumer.

  48. @D. K.
    I can imagine her in conference with her attorney(s), and being told, in passing, that the Haven Monaghan Yahoo! account's contents will undoubtedly be sought by the plaintiff's attorney(s), through a court order-- and having that realization cause her to log into that Yahoo! account to tidy up, as best she could, before even leaving the premises. As a former lawyer, I find it more plausible that this young woman, with her known track record, would undertake such a purge, as opposed to her lawyer(s) risking sanctions, or even disbarment.

    D. K., I much appreciate your expert and generous interpretation. The reason I remain skeptical is that, if I were her attorney, and having had such a conference, the last thing I’d let her do is access one of my firm’s computers to go about her monkey business.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    It is possible that she was accessing their wireless network on her own device-- although, one would expect them to have a password-protected system, and it is unlikely that their clients ever would be privy to that password!?! It also is possible that there are computer terminals available, such as in the firm's law library, that already are logged into their network. It even is possible that she was left alone in a lawyer's office, or near a legal secretary's or paralegal's workspace, and availed herself of the opportunity to go online and erase her pseudonymous Yahoo! e-mails in bulk. The bottom line is, I already know that she is an outrageously dishonest young woman, whereas I do not know that her law firm-- which I assume that her father hired and is paying for-- is professionally unethical.
    , @Jack D
    It's quite common nowadays for law firms and other offices to have a "guest" wi-fi network that visitors can access.

    That being said, I think it is more likely that an attorney or paralegal was given the password to check the account by Jackie so that they could comply with the subpoena and nothing was there because she had purged her fake Haven accounts long ago when this all started to blow up.
  49. @Anonymous
    Unbeknownst to 99.9999% of Americans there is this "thing" called AFRICOM.

    See, they've divided up the earth into precincts for their world police.

    We are under NORTHCOM, btw.

    So they are tearing up Africa for the foreseeable future, yeah. Libya? Hell yeah.

    The Ben Rhodes scandal informed us that the big papers no longer have foreign bureaus. They can't afford them. So now the MIC can just do whatever it wants overseas without any bad press showing up here at home.

    If America has sliced up the world (into Orwellian looking zones) for it to rule, then should it not be time that the entire world be allowed to vote in US elections ? The neocons keep saying how they want to topple regimes that don’t allow people to vote, but they run the most unaccountable regime of them all.

  50. @timothy
    I'm curious why this comment isn't getting approved.

    I’m curious how my computer displays comments that haven’t been approved.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I’m curious how my computer displays comments that haven’t been approved.
     
    Harry, have you been time travelling again? ;-)
    , @MEH 0910
    There's a loophole. If Steve approves a comment that is linked to an unapproved comment, you can see the unapproved comment by hovering over the @link.
  51. @The Undiscovered Jew
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Not likely it will amount to anything more than the cosmetic bombing of ISIS this ordered by this administration.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And yet the alt-right has deluded itself into the belief Obama is letting Mossad call the shots and Trump - who heartily thanks Sheldon for the $100 million and Jared Kushner for approving of his AIPAC speech - is anti-Israel.

    You boys have some nerve saying Adorno's classification of anti-semitism as a mental illness was wrong.

    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling. He convinced Sarkozy that the Arab Spring was the “right side of history” and such arguments are easily accepted by the likes of Obama.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most – Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don’t think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling.

    It's incidental and ignores the the numerous points of difference between Obama and neoconservatives, who have been out of power since Bush 2's presidency.

    Neocons disagreed with Obama's Iran deal and his interference with Israel's plans to use the IAF to attack their nuclear facilities, and his barely scratching ISIS with the US military.

    Obama's actions are consistent with those of someone who intentionally wants to extreme Muslim terrorists assume power across the Middle East.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most – Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don’t think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    No one in Israel dreaded Gadhaffi holding onto power in perpetuity
    , @The Undiscovered Jew
    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling.

    It's incidental and ignores the the numerous points of difference between Obama and neoconservatives, who have been out of power since Bush 2's presidency.

    Neocons disagreed with Obama's Iran deal, his interference with Israel's plans to use the IAF to attack their nuclear facilities, and his barely scratching ISIS with the US military.

    Obama's actions are consistent with those of someone who intentionally wants the most extreme of Muslim terrorists to assume power across the Middle East.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most – Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don’t think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    No one in Israel dreaded Gadhaffi holding onto power in perpetuity or see him as a 'Gandhi'. And they certainly did not want the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the stable, Cold War-vintage dictatorship of Mubarak.
  52. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm curious how my computer displays comments that haven't been approved.

    I’m curious how my computer displays comments that haven’t been approved.

    Harry, have you been time travelling again? 😉

  53. @SPMoore8
    D. K., I much appreciate your expert and generous interpretation. The reason I remain skeptical is that, if I were her attorney, and having had such a conference, the last thing I'd let her do is access one of my firm's computers to go about her monkey business.

    It is possible that she was accessing their wireless network on her own device– although, one would expect them to have a password-protected system, and it is unlikely that their clients ever would be privy to that password!?! It also is possible that there are computer terminals available, such as in the firm’s law library, that already are logged into their network. It even is possible that she was left alone in a lawyer’s office, or near a legal secretary’s or paralegal’s workspace, and availed herself of the opportunity to go online and erase her pseudonymous Yahoo! e-mails in bulk. The bottom line is, I already know that she is an outrageously dishonest young woman, whereas I do not know that her law firm– which I assume that her father hired and is paying for– is professionally unethical.

  54. @Anonym
    Stephen Miller earned his day’s pay with that interview.

    Direct link:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIuZgFLzSE0&feature=youtu.be

    I just watched the interview... it's even better than the excerpts. He just eviscerated the Clinton position. Three cheers for (((Stephen Miller))), righteous Jew!

    BTW Did you know that Miller is the third most common Jewish name in America? I learned that it was very common a long time ago (actually I think some guy called Miller told me it was the most common), but here is the evidence:

    http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm

    This election is going to be a landslide in Trump's favor. One reason is that Trump is brilliant at hiring. Having created a billion dollar company he has not been able to do everything himself and by necessity has to have gotten extremely good at hiring exceptional staff and delegating to them. Miller is an example of this, Manafort is another. Hell, Lewandowski did a bang up job getting Trump to the point where Manafort could consolidate.

    The second reason is that now Trump is the presumptive nominee, soon to be the actual nominee, the media has to give Trump and his people air time. And being able to actually advocate for the people instead of the likes of Soros, it's going to be devastating. By the time the election rolls around, the Democrats are going to be trying to repeal the 22nd amendment because they have no confidence in Clinton.

    In one of Phillip Roth’s books, the main character’s aunt always reads the Orbituaries to see if any Jews died. He wrote something to the effective of “she even counted the Millers.”

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I searched for Stephen Miller Trump Jewish, and a few sites think he is. Looks, Miller, politics, verbally adept, I am going with it. Unlike Roger Stone there is nothing there to indicate he isn't.
    , @Hibernian
    In areas with a large %age Jewish population, the chances that a Miller is Jewish are fairly high.
  55. @Thea
    In one of Phillip Roth's books, the main character's aunt always reads the Orbituaries to see if any Jews died. He wrote something to the effective of "she even counted the Millers."

    I searched for Stephen Miller Trump Jewish, and a few sites think he is. Looks, Miller, politics, verbally adept, I am going with it. Unlike Roger Stone there is nothing there to indicate he isn’t.

  56. @Romanian
    I think this whole idea/rhetorical flourish that X, Y or Z is not qualified to be President is dangerous. That's a step down from saying about voters who don't vote your way that they are not qualified to vote. Your Constitution establishes the exact qualifications to be President, the rest is up to the voters. Once you accept that someone can "disqualify" a candidate because of his positions, rather than simply not vote him in, it won't be long before you have someone mandating ideological tests before he can run for office. It's not like there is some sort of precedent for the sort of person who becomes President. They haven't all been military men, or occupied high office for many years, or been successful businessmen etc. If anyone wants to argue that Trump or even Hillary are not qualified to be President, then they have to accept that, to the extent that custom or precedent established a sort of minimalistic profile for presidential material, it all went out the window with Barack Obama. Arguably, the sentimentalist rot started earlier, with JFK's election. As always, it's the feelz that lead the way towards dumbing down.

    Very well put. Incidentally disqualifying someone because of their positions has been in effect for quite a while. That is why Trump has caused so much commotion.

    You are not supposed to be able to get this close to the presidency if you are opposed to free trade and open borders. Those are a couple of issues that the elite would like to disqualify any candidate for not holding the correct position. Trump’s success despite his views on those items has sent the establishment into a tizzy.

  57. AnotherDad
    says:

    May 21, 2016 at 1:29 am GMT • 300 Words

    Reminds me of the “Jews are left-wing because urban/SWPL” argument. Cheap misdirection, distinction without a difference.

    P.S., if the gov’t really wants those deleted emails, they can find them, because Yahoo (and probably plenty others) still have them. For that matter, they’re almost certainly sitting on an NSA server.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  58. @The Undiscovered Jew
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Not likely it will amount to anything more than the cosmetic bombing of ISIS this ordered by this administration.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And yet the alt-right has deluded itself into the belief Obama is letting Mossad call the shots and Trump - who heartily thanks Sheldon for the $100 million and Jared Kushner for approving of his AIPAC speech - is anti-Israel.

    You boys have some nerve saying Adorno's classification of anti-semitism as a mental illness was wrong.
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal...
  59. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal…

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president
     
    Also clean. Don't forget clean.
    , @Flip
    I vote Libertarian, but I would have voted for Obama over McCain too. I'll always remember him singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
    , @Mr. Anon
    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make - you are not making it.
  60. @The Undiscovered Jew
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly–Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Not likely it will amount to anything more than the cosmetic bombing of ISIS this ordered by this administration.

    Gadhaffi was overthrown by Obama because Obama, who had full knowledge of what the consequences would be, desired he be replaced with Muslim terrorists; just as Obama knew Assad would be replaced with ISIS and Mubarak would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    And yet the alt-right has deluded itself into the belief Obama is letting Mossad call the shots and Trump - who heartily thanks Sheldon for the $100 million and Jared Kushner for approving of his AIPAC speech - is anti-Israel.

    You boys have some nerve saying Adorno's classification of anti-semitism as a mental illness was wrong.

    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews. Besides a whole range of apolitical pathologies such as schizophrenia, Munchausen syndrom or anorexia, there is also “anti-Semitism”.

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews.

    That's a better explanation of the anti-semitic worldview than of Jews. To antisemites every Jewish action is seen as working against the interests of white gentiles, which makes every action by Jews 'proof' of their duplicity.

    The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren't acting substantially different from white gentiles.
  61. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm curious how my computer displays comments that haven't been approved.

    There’s a loophole. If Steve approves a comment that is linked to an unapproved comment, you can see the unapproved comment by hovering over the @link.

  62. @This Is Our Home
    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal...

    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president

    Also clean. Don’t forget clean.

  63. @timothy
    I'm curious why this comment isn't getting approved.

    Please don’t complain about the host. It makes you look weak. Besides, we can hardly expect that Steve’s 10,000 sweatshop south Asians won’t make an occasional mistake.

  64. @Romanian
    I think this whole idea/rhetorical flourish that X, Y or Z is not qualified to be President is dangerous. That's a step down from saying about voters who don't vote your way that they are not qualified to vote. Your Constitution establishes the exact qualifications to be President, the rest is up to the voters. Once you accept that someone can "disqualify" a candidate because of his positions, rather than simply not vote him in, it won't be long before you have someone mandating ideological tests before he can run for office. It's not like there is some sort of precedent for the sort of person who becomes President. They haven't all been military men, or occupied high office for many years, or been successful businessmen etc. If anyone wants to argue that Trump or even Hillary are not qualified to be President, then they have to accept that, to the extent that custom or precedent established a sort of minimalistic profile for presidential material, it all went out the window with Barack Obama. Arguably, the sentimentalist rot started earlier, with JFK's election. As always, it's the feelz that lead the way towards dumbing down.

    A true and perfectly expressed comment. Bravo.

  65. the Sailerization of politics

  66. @Jim Don Bob
    This is gonna be great. Trump and his people are going to humiliate Hillary for the next six months and then she's gonna lose.

    I think she’ll drop out.

  67. @This Is Our Home
    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal...

    I vote Libertarian, but I would have voted for Obama over McCain too. I’ll always remember him singing “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal...

    Voting for the Muslim enabling Obama is proof the problem with Jewish political leanings is that, rather than acting opposed to their host socieities interests out of 'ethnocentrism', they've assimilated too well into the self-destructive liberalism of the West.

    Actual ethnocentric Jews such as the Orthodox denominations and recent immigrants from Russia rejected Obama by margins of 3 to 1 compared to non-ethnocentric secular Jews.
  68. Miller is part of the Sailer generation. Having followed him fairly closely, including speeches he’s given, I’d be shocked if he isn’t a long-time reader of yours. He’s one of Sessions’ top guys and now he’s one of Trump’s top advisors.

  69. Yawn. Because:

    1) No one watches CNN.
    2) Most people vote Democrat for gibsmedat.
    3) All Berniephiles will vote Clinton in November because Trump = racist = Hitler.

    Duh.

  70. Trump also seems to grok anarcho-tyranny at least on an instinctual level:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/20/trump-slams-hillarys-soft-on-crime-stance-this-is-a-risk-we-can-no-longer-afford/

    Who ever knew when someone this close to the Presidency sorta understood the concepts of invade-invite-the-world and anarcho-tyranny, it turns out to be Donald Trump.

  71. JSM says:

    Who ever knew when someone this close to the Presidency sorta understood the concepts of invade-invite-the-world and anarcho-tyranny, it turns out to be Donald Trump.

    I’m tired of the spit takes from everybody that it’s Donald Trump that is our champion. You guys think he’s a buffoon.
    He’s not.

    He’s a flippin’ genius. I think he’s been toying with the idea of being President since mid 1980s.
    He’s so smart, he knew all along, the only way to get the Presidency as a populist, not beholden to (((special interests))) is to get his own hit reality TV show for the celebrity status so he could get media time without spending any money. So, that’s what he did.
    This guy has played the ((((mainstream media)))) like a virtuoso.
    No more of this “Donald Trump wtf?” stuff. He’s the ONLY guy alive who ever could become an America-Firster President.

  72. By the Trump campaign’s own standard, Trump is equally unqualified to be president as he showed the very same poor judgment: supporting the Iraq War and the Libya fiasco. Of course, he makes matters worse by lying about it afterwards.

    He’s simply incapable of being truthful or consistent. You can kiss The Wall goodbye–it was only “a suggestion.” Same goes for his list of conservative justices, which he backed out of the very next day.

    It’s as if he’s running just to prove how badly people can delude themselves when they’re down on their luck. #NeverTrump

  73. Jon McCain’s serious challenger Kelli Ward in the GOP senate primary has “America First” and “Invite the world, invade the world” front and center of her page on the immigration issue.

    An “America First” National Security Policy

    Establishment John McCain’s national security policy seems to be “Invade the World, Invite the World” as The American Conservative Magazine so memorably put it a few years ago.

    http://www.kelliward.com/immigration

  74. @This Is Our Home
    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal...

    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make – you are not making it.

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make – you are not making it.

    Making illogical points about Jews is par for the course at iSteve where the main misinterpretation of Jewish actions is that of ethnocentrism under the disguise of universal liberalism.

    Since Romney, who was practically endorsed by his life-long friend Netanyahu, couldn't win the Jewish vote despite the fact his presidency would obviously be 'Good for Likud' and better on ethnocentric grounds in every than that MB/ISIS sympathizer then Jews aren't acting on ethnocentric concerns, they're acting on secular humanist terms because they are secular humanists.
  75. @neutral
    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling. He convinced Sarkozy that the Arab Spring was the "right side of history" and such arguments are easily accepted by the likes of Obama.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most - Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don't think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling.

    It’s incidental and ignores the the numerous points of difference between Obama and neoconservatives, who have been out of power since Bush 2’s presidency.

    Neocons disagreed with Obama’s Iran deal and his interference with Israel’s plans to use the IAF to attack their nuclear facilities, and his barely scratching ISIS with the US military.

    Obama’s actions are consistent with those of someone who intentionally wants to extreme Muslim terrorists assume power across the Middle East.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most – Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don’t think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    No one in Israel dreaded Gadhaffi holding onto power in perpetuity

  76. @neutral
    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling. He convinced Sarkozy that the Arab Spring was the "right side of history" and such arguments are easily accepted by the likes of Obama.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most - Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don't think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    The architect of Libya was Bernard Levy, no doubt you will say its a conspiracy theory, but seriously look it up, he is a French neocon (who also supports invade the world, invite the world) who got the ball rolling.

    It’s incidental and ignores the the numerous points of difference between Obama and neoconservatives, who have been out of power since Bush 2’s presidency.

    Neocons disagreed with Obama’s Iran deal, his interference with Israel’s plans to use the IAF to attack their nuclear facilities, and his barely scratching ISIS with the US military.

    Obama’s actions are consistent with those of someone who intentionally wants the most extreme of Muslim terrorists to assume power across the Middle East.

    On the topic of ISIS and Mossad, put it this way, who do you think the British Colonials were sincerely dreading the most – Gandhi or violent Hindu nationalists ? Mossad absolutely dreads an Arab Mandela, with ISIS this is their bread and butter. I don’t think they were involved with Libya directly, but they absolutely do think it is a blessing that ISIS is in Libya now.

    No one in Israel dreaded Gadhaffi holding onto power in perpetuity or see him as a ‘Gandhi’. And they certainly did not want the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the stable, Cold War-vintage dictatorship of Mubarak.

  77. @Aschwin
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews. Besides a whole range of apolitical pathologies such as schizophrenia, Munchausen syndrom or anorexia, there is also "anti-Semitism".

    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews.

    That’s a better explanation of the anti-semitic worldview than of Jews. To antisemites every Jewish action is seen as working against the interests of white gentiles, which makes every action by Jews ‘proof’ of their duplicity.

    The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren’t acting substantially different from white gentiles.

    • Replies: @helena
    Very true. The issue, as always, is territory.
    , @Ozymandias
    "The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren’t acting substantially different from white gentiles."

    Would you mind citing a few wealthy elite White gentiles who are actively working to undermine and subvert Jewish society?
    , @grapesoda
    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy."

    Real original line of thought there. You're the first person to ever use this line of reasoning. I suppose coming into a thread that has nothing to do with Judaism and ranting about Anti-Semitism is the epitome of sane behavior?
  78. @Flip
    I vote Libertarian, but I would have voted for Obama over McCain too. I'll always remember him singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

    Jews voted for the nice, well spoken first black president over the palpably crazy John Mcain. Big deal…

    Voting for the Muslim enabling Obama is proof the problem with Jewish political leanings is that, rather than acting opposed to their host socieities interests out of ‘ethnocentrism’, they’ve assimilated too well into the self-destructive liberalism of the West.

    Actual ethnocentric Jews such as the Orthodox denominations and recent immigrants from Russia rejected Obama by margins of 3 to 1 compared to non-ethnocentric secular Jews.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  79. @Diversity Heretic
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly--Hillary Clinton's misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Stephen Miller earned his day's pay with that interview.

    Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary’s “experience”, i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump’s campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.

    I have posted this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating:

    A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton’s corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas’s first “lady”;
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a “sure thing” presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long “special relation” between the UK and the USA;
    (10) A bit later her incredibly stupid “reset button” gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called “Arab Spring” which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
    (15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her “foundation” had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    • Replies: @Busby
    Okay, so she wasn't successful at most of her jobs. And I readily admit things got out of hand and a few of our allies and our own citizens were bruised. But isn't that an indictment of our politicians, and in effect an indictment of our entire way of choosing government employees. And if you think I'm going to sit here and read about people trashing the United States of America....

    Exit humming
    , @Hibernian
    I hadn't heard about (9). Please elaborate.
    , @bomag
    Excellent list, but we're up against a doomsday cult who take failure as evidence that they have to double down and believe even more strongly...
  80. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary's "experience", i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump's campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.

    I have posted this elsewhere but it's worth repeating:

    A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton's corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas's first "lady";
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a "sure thing" presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long "special relation" between the UK and the USA;
    (10) A bit later her incredibly stupid "reset button" gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called "Arab Spring" which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
    (15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her "foundation" had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    Okay, so she wasn’t successful at most of her jobs. And I readily admit things got out of hand and a few of our allies and our own citizens were bruised. But isn’t that an indictment of our politicians, and in effect an indictment of our entire way of choosing government employees. And if you think I’m going to sit here and read about people trashing the United States of America….

    Exit humming

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    You left out "So she took a few liberties with national and international financial laws".
  81. @Busby
    Okay, so she wasn't successful at most of her jobs. And I readily admit things got out of hand and a few of our allies and our own citizens were bruised. But isn't that an indictment of our politicians, and in effect an indictment of our entire way of choosing government employees. And if you think I'm going to sit here and read about people trashing the United States of America....

    Exit humming

    You left out “So she took a few liberties with national and international financial laws”.

  82. This is what kills me about Hillary supporters. They talk about her ‘experience’ like it’s something to be proud of, instead of a long history of catastrophes.

    Part of the issue is getting them to even admit her mistakes are, in fact, mistakes. I’ve noticed when they’re defending her online they typically refuse to acknowledge that she actually violated any laws in handling classified information (as if they have experience in that arena) or they say she couldn’t have known it was a violation – never mind the fact that the government will gladly crucify an 18 year old private for the same kind of indiscretion, and the Secretary of State might be expected to uphold a higher standard. The argument is either she’s stupid and incompetent, or she’s corrupt, and either way she doesn’t look good.

    I can at least understand at some level the appeal of Obama or Sanders. But Hillary? Neocon foreign policy, Wall Street cronyism, general ineptitude, in bed with the Saudis, etc., etc.,… What do these so-called progressives see in her?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    What do these so-called progressives see in her?
     
    Someone who hates the bad guy as much as they do.

    That's pretty much it.
  83. @ATX Hipster
    This is what kills me about Hillary supporters. They talk about her 'experience' like it's something to be proud of, instead of a long history of catastrophes.

    Part of the issue is getting them to even admit her mistakes are, in fact, mistakes. I've noticed when they're defending her online they typically refuse to acknowledge that she actually violated any laws in handling classified information (as if they have experience in that arena) or they say she couldn't have known it was a violation - never mind the fact that the government will gladly crucify an 18 year old private for the same kind of indiscretion, and the Secretary of State might be expected to uphold a higher standard. The argument is either she's stupid and incompetent, or she's corrupt, and either way she doesn't look good.

    I can at least understand at some level the appeal of Obama or Sanders. But Hillary? Neocon foreign policy, Wall Street cronyism, general ineptitude, in bed with the Saudis, etc., etc.,... What do these so-called progressives see in her?

    What do these so-called progressives see in her?

    Someone who hates the bad guy as much as they do.

    That’s pretty much it.

  84. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews.

    That's a better explanation of the anti-semitic worldview than of Jews. To antisemites every Jewish action is seen as working against the interests of white gentiles, which makes every action by Jews 'proof' of their duplicity.

    The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren't acting substantially different from white gentiles.

    Very true. The issue, as always, is territory.

  85. @Svigor
    Junebug, that's a good point, but easily judo-flipped: "yeah, I was wrong. But I was just some guy in the media. What was Hillary's excuse? 'Oh I'm just Secretary of State, how can I be expected to know this stuff?'?" Trump can say he fell off his donkey on the way to Damascus and realized Hillary is a disaster. What's Hillary supposed to say? She's the disaster.

    Why is this reply of Svigor not linked-to the post of junebug’s that it (Svigor’s post) is a reply to?

  86. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews.

    That's a better explanation of the anti-semitic worldview than of Jews. To antisemites every Jewish action is seen as working against the interests of white gentiles, which makes every action by Jews 'proof' of their duplicity.

    The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren't acting substantially different from white gentiles.

    “The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren’t acting substantially different from white gentiles.”

    Would you mind citing a few wealthy elite White gentiles who are actively working to undermine and subvert Jewish society?

  87. @Diversity Heretic
    I read today that the U.S. is contemplating an indefinite military presence in Libya. Trump should use that mercilessly--Hillary Clinton's misjudgments in Libya have led to yet another (pointless) American military commitment.

    Stephen Miller earned his day's pay with that interview.

    10,000 Western troops in Libya is a good thing. They can impound the boats and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from going to Sicily annually. This will be one of the best military deployments possible.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    "They can impound the boats and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from going to Sicily annually."

    They can impound boats ...

    but a more likely mission for the modern US military under a modern C-in-C is repairing boats, providing medical and humanitarian assistance and generally enabling more migration.
  88. @Thea
    In one of Phillip Roth's books, the main character's aunt always reads the Orbituaries to see if any Jews died. He wrote something to the effective of "she even counted the Millers."

    In areas with a large %age Jewish population, the chances that a Miller is Jewish are fairly high.

  89. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary's "experience", i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump's campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.

    I have posted this elsewhere but it's worth repeating:

    A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton's corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas's first "lady";
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a "sure thing" presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long "special relation" between the UK and the USA;
    (10) A bit later her incredibly stupid "reset button" gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called "Arab Spring" which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
    (15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her "foundation" had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    I hadn’t heard about (9). Please elaborate.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I second this!
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544634.stm

    and here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html

    See here for outcome: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8590767.stm

    I cannot find the Foreign Secretary's public announcement but it was big news for a time, even making the front page of the NYT. The MSM seem to have successfully shoved this faux pas and the resulting contretemps down their capacious memory holes.

    US policy had always been to recognize the UK's legitimate claims regarding the Falkland Islands. As part of this policy, the US ALWAYS refers to these islands as the Falkland Islands and NEVER as the Malvinas Islands. For Clinton in an official and very public speech to refer to Las Malvinas Islas soon after becoming Secretary of State was either an unbelievably stupid blunder or a thoughtless repudiation of an established and useful US diplomatic position, done without consultation.

    This might be forgiven as a dangerous but understandable slip by a foreign affairs tyro except that Clinton and her supporters constantly tout her foreign policy "expertise" even while she continues to commit these blunders over and over and over and...

    God help us if she ever again gets to set any aspect of US foreign policy.
  90. @Mr. Anon
    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make - you are not making it.

    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make – you are not making it.

    Making illogical points about Jews is par for the course at iSteve where the main misinterpretation of Jewish actions is that of ethnocentrism under the disguise of universal liberalism.

    Since Romney, who was practically endorsed by his life-long friend Netanyahu, couldn’t win the Jewish vote despite the fact his presidency would obviously be ‘Good for Likud’ and better on ethnocentric grounds in every than that MB/ISIS sympathizer then Jews aren’t acting on ethnocentric concerns, they’re acting on secular humanist terms because they are secular humanists.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Making illogical points about Jews is par for the course at iSteve where the main misinterpretation of Jewish actions is that of ethnocentrism under the disguise of universal liberalism."

    And you maintain that Jews never act out of ethnocentrism? That is just baldly disingenuous. Do you maintain that Jews voted for Barack Obama because or even despite they thought he would be bad for jewish interests?

  91. @Hibernian
    I hadn't heard about (9). Please elaborate.

    I second this!

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    See my response @Hibernian. The Commons' finding was followed with a formal speech by the UK's Foreign Minister, as was reported widely at the time. After searching for about a quarter hour I cannot find a site confirming that but it is my firm recollection.
  92. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Trump and some of his spokesmen have mentioned this but none have gone into it in juicy detail: Much is made of Hillary's "experience", i.e., the manifold opportunities she has been given to demonstrate her worthiness to hold high office, largely as a result of her marriage to a successful politician. But more important is how abysmally, terrifyingly badly she has performed every time she has been given such opportunities. I think Trump's campaign ought to make a list and recite it at every possible opportunity from now until November.

    I have posted this elsewhere but it's worth repeating:

    A partial, chronological list from the public record of instances of Hilary Clinton's corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas's first "lady";
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a "sure thing" presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long "special relation" between the UK and the USA;
    (10) A bit later her incredibly stupid "reset button" gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (11) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called "Arab Spring" which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (12) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (13) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (14) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteligence sources [people may have died as a result];
    (15) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her "foundation" had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    Excellent list, but we’re up against a doomsday cult who take failure as evidence that they have to double down and believe even more strongly…

  93. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Every Jewish explanation of anti-semitism is ultimately based on the notion that the whole world, no, life itself, revolves around the Jews.

    That's a better explanation of the anti-semitic worldview than of Jews. To antisemites every Jewish action is seen as working against the interests of white gentiles, which makes every action by Jews 'proof' of their duplicity.

    The way not make fools of yourselves when analyzing Jews is to realize Jews aren't acting substantially different from white gentiles.

    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is crazy.”

    Real original line of thought there. You’re the first person to ever use this line of reasoning. I suppose coming into a thread that has nothing to do with Judaism and ranting about Anti-Semitism is the epitome of sane behavior?

    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    Israel has nothing to do with American immigration policy, but that doesn't stop this forum from confusing the two all the time. By now you should be used to that kind of segue.

    My point's also true. Put it this way, is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?
  94. @SPMoore8
    D. K., I much appreciate your expert and generous interpretation. The reason I remain skeptical is that, if I were her attorney, and having had such a conference, the last thing I'd let her do is access one of my firm's computers to go about her monkey business.

    It’s quite common nowadays for law firms and other offices to have a “guest” wi-fi network that visitors can access.

    That being said, I think it is more likely that an attorney or paralegal was given the password to check the account by Jackie so that they could comply with the subpoena and nothing was there because she had purged her fake Haven accounts long ago when this all started to blow up.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think that's possible and that's why I said I thought it looked like Eramos' attorneys had snookered Jackie's lawyers. They asked for all Monahan emails: why would they need them? This case is about Rolling Stone and Erdely: not Jackie. So, in compliance, either Jackie (at her lawyer's) or her lawyers accessed the Monahan account, which did not turn up any emails (unless they destroyed them) but did establish that Jackie and her lawyers could acccess the Monahan email account, which, by extension means that Jackie created the Monahan email account. The sting came with the subpoena for the IP addresses.

    A little catfishing in reverse, so to speak. The entire maneuver suggests that Jackie has been less than forthcoming in her deposition about her culpability in the creation of Haven Monahan.

    Okay, now that we have established that Haven Monahan was a creation of Jackie, then it follows that there was no sexual assault, unless by some weird process Jackie self-created Haven Monahan so that she could rape herself.

    Again, the above is at least one more brick in the argument that there was no sexual assault, yet Rolling Stone ran with the story. Someone is responsible. Rolling Stone blames Erdely, Erdely blames Jackie, Jackie blames Haven. Jackie is Haven. The buck stops there, which means that Eramo's conduct cannot be criticized, Jackie didn't want the story to run, and the responsibility ends up squarely on Erdely and RS.
  95. @Jack D
    It's quite common nowadays for law firms and other offices to have a "guest" wi-fi network that visitors can access.

    That being said, I think it is more likely that an attorney or paralegal was given the password to check the account by Jackie so that they could comply with the subpoena and nothing was there because she had purged her fake Haven accounts long ago when this all started to blow up.

    I think that’s possible and that’s why I said I thought it looked like Eramos’ attorneys had snookered Jackie’s lawyers. They asked for all Monahan emails: why would they need them? This case is about Rolling Stone and Erdely: not Jackie. So, in compliance, either Jackie (at her lawyer’s) or her lawyers accessed the Monahan account, which did not turn up any emails (unless they destroyed them) but did establish that Jackie and her lawyers could acccess the Monahan email account, which, by extension means that Jackie created the Monahan email account. The sting came with the subpoena for the IP addresses.

    A little catfishing in reverse, so to speak. The entire maneuver suggests that Jackie has been less than forthcoming in her deposition about her culpability in the creation of Haven Monahan.

    Okay, now that we have established that Haven Monahan was a creation of Jackie, then it follows that there was no sexual assault, unless by some weird process Jackie self-created Haven Monahan so that she could rape herself.

    Again, the above is at least one more brick in the argument that there was no sexual assault, yet Rolling Stone ran with the story. Someone is responsible. Rolling Stone blames Erdely, Erdely blames Jackie, Jackie blames Haven. Jackie is Haven. The buck stops there, which means that Eramo’s conduct cannot be criticized, Jackie didn’t want the story to run, and the responsibility ends up squarely on Erdely and RS.

  96. @grapesoda
    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy."

    Real original line of thought there. You're the first person to ever use this line of reasoning. I suppose coming into a thread that has nothing to do with Judaism and ranting about Anti-Semitism is the epitome of sane behavior?

    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    Israel has nothing to do with American immigration policy, but that doesn’t stop this forum from confusing the two all the time. By now you should be used to that kind of segue.

    My point’s also true. Put it this way, is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Put it this way, is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?"

    Yes.

    Is there any discussion by gentiles of Jews as a group and/or jewish interests that is not characterized as "anti-semitism"?
  97. @Anonymous
    10,000 Western troops in Libya is a good thing. They can impound the boats and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from going to Sicily annually. This will be one of the best military deployments possible.

    “They can impound the boats and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from going to Sicily annually.”

    They can impound boats …

    but a more likely mission for the modern US military under a modern C-in-C is repairing boats, providing medical and humanitarian assistance and generally enabling more migration.

  98. @Hibernian
    I hadn't heard about (9). Please elaborate.

    Background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544634.stm

    and here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html

    See here for outcome: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8590767.stm

    I cannot find the Foreign Secretary’s public announcement but it was big news for a time, even making the front page of the NYT. The MSM seem to have successfully shoved this faux pas and the resulting contretemps down their capacious memory holes.

    US policy had always been to recognize the UK’s legitimate claims regarding the Falkland Islands. As part of this policy, the US ALWAYS refers to these islands as the Falkland Islands and NEVER as the Malvinas Islands. For Clinton in an official and very public speech to refer to Las Malvinas Islas soon after becoming Secretary of State was either an unbelievably stupid blunder or a thoughtless repudiation of an established and useful US diplomatic position, done without consultation.

    This might be forgiven as a dangerous but understandable slip by a foreign affairs tyro except that Clinton and her supporters constantly tout her foreign policy “expertise” even while she continues to commit these blunders over and over and over and…

    God help us if she ever again gets to set any aspect of US foreign policy.

  99. @reiner Tor
    I second this!

    See my response . The Commons’ finding was followed with a formal speech by the UK’s Foreign Minister, as was reported widely at the time. After searching for about a quarter hour I cannot find a site confirming that but it is my firm recollection.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Thanks!
  100. @Jus' Sayin'...
    See my response @Hibernian. The Commons' finding was followed with a formal speech by the UK's Foreign Minister, as was reported widely at the time. After searching for about a quarter hour I cannot find a site confirming that but it is my firm recollection.

    Thanks!

  101. Israel has nothing to do with American immigration policy, but that doesn’t stop this forum from confusing the two all the time. By now you should be used to that kind of segue.

    Israel has a lot to do with American immigration policy:

    1. Israel is an ethno-state, and has a nationalistic immigration policy.
    2. Diaspora Jewry, particularly American Jewry, is Israel’s BFF.
    3. Diaspora Jewry is a critical component supporting America’s anti-nationalist open-borders policy, and the overall anti-ethno-state (for non-Jews) sentiment.

    Israel is critical to calling out our anti-nationalist/pro-Jewish-nationalist regime. To say otherwise is naive, at best.

    is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?

    Of course there is. What kind of stupid question is that? I can give you a partial list of Righteous Jews, if you like.

  102. @The Undiscovered Jew
    It is estimated that Jews voted for Obama to the tune of 69% in 2012, against the palpably non-crazy Mitt Romney. Whatever point you are trying to make – you are not making it.

    Making illogical points about Jews is par for the course at iSteve where the main misinterpretation of Jewish actions is that of ethnocentrism under the disguise of universal liberalism.

    Since Romney, who was practically endorsed by his life-long friend Netanyahu, couldn't win the Jewish vote despite the fact his presidency would obviously be 'Good for Likud' and better on ethnocentric grounds in every than that MB/ISIS sympathizer then Jews aren't acting on ethnocentric concerns, they're acting on secular humanist terms because they are secular humanists.

    “Making illogical points about Jews is par for the course at iSteve where the main misinterpretation of Jewish actions is that of ethnocentrism under the disguise of universal liberalism.”

    And you maintain that Jews never act out of ethnocentrism? That is just baldly disingenuous. Do you maintain that Jews voted for Barack Obama because or even despite they thought he would be bad for jewish interests?

  103. @The Undiscovered Jew
    No one was even discussing Judaism before you came in here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    Israel has nothing to do with American immigration policy, but that doesn't stop this forum from confusing the two all the time. By now you should be used to that kind of segue.

    My point's also true. Put it this way, is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?

    “Put it this way, is there anything the Jews could do that would NOT be interpreted as being a mask for covert motives?”

    Yes.

    Is there any discussion by gentiles of Jews as a group and/or jewish interests that is not characterized as “anti-semitism”?

  104. […] incorrect issues How conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Terror attacks distract from the Invade the World, Invite the World agenda How conspiracy theories about mass shootings(ex. Sandy Hook and the Batman shooting were MK […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS