She's running: Hillary Clinton finally notices the electoral college matters

Monica Showalter  "After years of deriding the electoral college and touting her own success in winning the popular vote, Hillary Clinton is talking another story.

"According to a report in The Hill:

Hillary Clinton on Monday urged Democrats to choose a nominee who can win the Electoral College in 2020.

 "We have to hope that whoever ends up nominated can win the Electoral College," she said at a discussion of her book, "The Book of Gutsy Women," in Denver.

 "I think several of our candidates could win the popular vote but as I know ... that's not enough," added the 2016 Democratic nominee. 

 "I don't think we have a choice; we have to win" in 2020, she said, speaking alongside her daughter and co-author Chelsea Clinton at a sold-out event. 

"That intense focus on doing what it takes to actually win an election, instead of just count on solid-blue cities and states to carry the tally and yell victory, which she did earlier, insisting the whole thing was proof she really won the 2016 election, does signal some kind of change in thinking. As recently as Halloween, she was touting the importance of the popular vote. Something happened in the last five days while she's been out on book tour, touting some dreary book called "Gutsy Women about the importance of being left wing seems to have seeped into her frame of mind.

"Might it be that Joe Biden is flailing in the general election, the ooze of corruption from his son Hunter's doings, seeping closer and closer to Biden's own podium? Might it be that Wall Street is giving a Bronx cheer to the Democrats' reportedly best hope, Elizabeth Warren? Hillary Clinton never had problems shaking down that crowd. Might it be the spirited rallies and extreme enthusiasm seen at Trump rallies, way out in the deplorable flyover country, that place Clinton has long derided as not quite as good as her beloved blue cities? Most every hard-nosed observer of the political scene thinks Trump can beat every face on the Democrats' remaining roster. It could explain her sudden awakening to the importance, if not value, of the electoral college. 

"In any case, as her convenient book tour goes on, it appears she's getting warmer to the idea of running for president again. She's obviously convinced she could do it because she's now looking at practical ways of winning, the ones she ignored back when she was refusing to go to Wisconsin. Townhall has a pretty good writeup with some choice tweets here.

"She's running. Ready for Hillary, again?"

Clinton Unites Democrats — Against Her  . . . "Hillary Clinton keeps flirting with running for president again, and the Democrat Party keeps rejecting her advances. You cannot blame Democrats for dismissing a candidacy the only rationale for which is hubris. And you cannot blame Republicans for desiring a candidacy that would take Democrats’ current chaos to another level.
"Welcome to the Clinton conundrum. On one hand, Hillary’s ominous omnipresence would signal an impending run if she were anyone else. On the other, Hillary’s two national election losses would signal a permanent retirement if she were anyone else.
"As they have been for almost three decades, Democrats are still trying to solve the Clinton riddle. Currently, they have their hands full with a fractured field that refuses to yield clarity. Four months in, and no closer to choosing next year’s nominee, the nominee from three years ago resurfaces." . . .

A glimpse inside Hillary and her demagoguery, showing her state of mind

Still loved by Feminists and TV hosts like Colbert; is Hillary the best they can come up with?

Richard Kantro  "It's genuinely remarkable, what with her résumé overflowing with maledictions, malefactions, imprecations, fabrications, machinations, and depredations, that Hillary Clinton was able last week to outdo herself -- at this presumably late stage of her malodorous political career -- by hurling a ball of flaming bile at Tulsi Gabbard.
. . .
"Ah, grace.  Hillary Clinton's frayed psychology is showing, and this perennial beldam's psyche is as ugly as her politics and her tactics.  Tulsi Gabbard's positions aside, she is young, good-looking, well-spoken, patriotic, and politically viable:  reasons enough for a jealous harridan to smolder and burn against her.  The one quality, youth, Clinton left behind decades ago.  The others she never had, and never could."

Explaining Hillary Clinton's feud with Tulsi Gabbard  . . . "With some Obama administration officials, they unleashed the Russian collusion hoax.  Despite the conclusion of the Mueller investigation of Trump, the matter morphed into obstruction of justice and now political abuse of power with Ukraine and military material support.  

The eyes of Sauron

"But you have to go back to 2000 to remember that Hillary opposed the election of George W. Bush since he had not won the popular vote against Al Gore.  Later, the California absentee vote revealed a much closer vote, generally not reported by the liberal press.  Our Constitution's Electoral College does not seem to matter to Hillary.

"So why is Hillary so focused on Gabbard?  During the 2016 Democratic primaries, the party had rigged the process against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).  It was clearly Hillary's effort to ensure her nomination.  Tulsi Gabbard found this unacceptable and supported Sanders after resigning her high-level position within the party.  Clinton carries her grudges, and this is payback." . . . 

Gabbard Releases Official Video Response to Clinton's Smear  " 'People warned me in 2016 that my endorsement of Bernie Sanders would be the end of my 'political career,'" Gabbard said in the video "They said, 'Clinton will never forget,' that she and her rich and powerful friends, her allies in politics and the media will make sure that you are destroyed." . . .

Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary

Until Hillary Clinton or anyone else generates some actual proof, treat Tulsi Gabbard for what she appears to be — an impassioned isolationist who believes the United States has no business attempting to spread our values or stand up for human rights abroad, and who’s comfortable working with brutal dictators if the end result is fewer American casualties. Not every bad or controversial idea in public life is a sign of a sinister conspiracy.

Mayor Pete's Ability to Spin Clinton's Attack on Gabbard Is Utterly Shameful

Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, And Hillary Clinton’s Greatest Fear

By the way, incase you hadn't heard, Hillary Now Blaming The DNC For Her Loss To Trump…  That would be the same DNC which gave her so many superdelegates.

No. Wait! It was sexism: Hillary Clinton (Again) Blames ‘Sexism’ For Election Defeat…

Hillary Clinton’s sad, sick conspiracy theories  . . . "In her efforts to rationalize her 2016 loss, Hillary Clinton has gone full cuckoo. Vladimir Putin not only robbed her, he’s positioning his “assets” to do it again.
" . . .She’s the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton raved.
"She plainly meant Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, as Plouffe said. Never mind that Gabbard ruled out any third-party bid on CNN in August — or that she’s a veteran who put her life on the line for this country.
"This follows last week’s New York Times story hinting at the same conspiracy theory, which cited at least two former Clinton aides and which Gabbard slammed onstage at last week’s debate." . . .

Via Weasel Zippers:

Tulsi Gabbard: 'They will destroy you' if you stand up to Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s words are supposed to carry weight. She has made a charge that the Russians are meddling in the 2020 presidential election. If her statement wasn’t so batty, it should probably trigger an investigation – maybe another special counsel.

The Tulsi-Hillary show  "Has Hillary Clinton finally lost it?" 
" 'In what sounded like a sketch from “Saturday Night Live” or an episode of the old “Twilight Zone” TV series, Clinton used a podcast interview this week to throw out a bizarre conspiracy theory attacking struggling Democratic presidential contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

"Shocked by her stunning defeat at the hands of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race, Clinton and her supporters – including most of the media – concocted a Russia collusion hoax to explain Trump’s victory." . . .

Tulsi Gabbard fights back against Comrade Clinton’s smear attempts

 . . ."Remember, Hillary is the one who signed off on selling Russian-connected parties 20% of the US uranium supply, after which the Clinton Foundation got more than $100 million in “donations” and Bill pocketed $500,000 cash for speeches to Moscow banks controlled by Putin-allied oligarchs.

"Why would the Russians have ever supported Donald Trump when they already knew that they could, uh, do business with the Clintons? They say Vladimir Putin is a gangster, and he probably is, so let me ask you: since when do gangsters want to replace crooked cops they’ve already bribed, and therefore own?" . . .

What the Framers Knew That Hillary Doesn’t . . . "Democrats have claimed over and over that Trump has some sort of mental illness, but a far stronger case could be made that it is Clinton who is clinically delusional. She remains unable to understand that she failed to gain an Electoral College majority because she was the less talented candidate and because of her obvious use of her governmental position corruptly to increase her and her family’s wealth."
. . . 
"Clinton’s talent for fabrication, a talent also shared by her husband (a man once branded by a fellow Democratic politician, Senator Bob Kerry, as an “unusually good liar”) is also manifested by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the other Democrats pushing for the impeachment of President Trump with the currently manufactured tale of misdeeds involving the Ukraine.". . . 

Ah-HA! This proves it!  MSNBC panel: Gabbard didn't 'deny being a Russian asset'

Try beating this panel, CNN!

"Tulsi Gabbard: 'They will destroy you' if you stand up to Clinton"  

2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard claimed the Democrat establishment will end a politician's career if they stand up to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

'An agile pivot': Buttigieg refuses to defend Gabbard from Clinton attacks

Ben Garrison

CNN Democrat Van Jones Slams Hillary Over Her Atrocious Attack Of Tulsi

. . . "Here’s what he had to say Friday night:

“If you’re concerned about disinformation…that is what just happened, just throw out some information, disinformation, smear somebody. She is Hillary Clinton. She’s a legend. She’s going to be in the history books. She’s a former nominee of our party, and she just came out against a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody who’s running for the nomination of our party with just a complete smear and no facts.”

. . .  

The liberal scheme to get rid of the Electoral College is dangerous

BPR

With all that in mind, does this really make sense? Are we really so dead-set on taking the success and prosperity of America for granted that we’re willing to go down this dangerous road? Maybe we are. In fact, if Texas goes blue, you can be certain that it will be Republicans pushing this idea or something similar. But, as our Founding Fathers realized, it’s dangerous to our Republic and we should be very hesitant to take the sort of risk that moving to a popular vote model would create. 

"From George Washington to Donald Trump, there have been 45 American presidents and out of all the elections they have participated in, there have only been five times where the popular vote did not agree with the electoral college. However, because two of those elections have occurred within the last 20 years (Trump vs. Clinton, Bush vs. Gore), liberals believe we have a crisis on our hands that must be addressed.

"Their plan to address this crisis is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The idea is to get 270 electoral votes worth of states to sign up for it and then those states will promise to throw their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. 

"Democrats believe this will benefit them, but that is far from assured. Why? Because since the election isn’t decided on the popular vote, Republicans haven’t been competing to win the popular vote. For example, what sense would it have made for Donald Trump to spend major resources in California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois in 2016? He wasn’t going to win those states and everyone knew it, including Republican voters, millions of whom undoubtedly didn’t bother turning out because of it.

"If the popular vote were to become the standard, Republicans would start spending major amounts of time and money in big liberal states and once that happens, there’s no reason to think that Democrats would have an advantage. In fact, if and when Texas turns blue, it would undoubtedly be to the Republican Party’s advantage to have the election decided by the popular vote." . . .

Sorry Democrats. America does not do star chambers

Don Surber

Now they wish to seek to impeach without an impeachment inquiry. Democrats want to turn talking to a foreign president into an impeachable offense.

"The Daily Mail sized up well where American politics is today.

"It said, "The White House's refusal to cooperate with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's impeachment inquiry has teed up a constitutional clash that will likely leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to compel compliance, experts said Wednesday.

" 'The confrontation – which has only grown more volatile since the release of a whistle-blower's report last month – could very well be on a path akin to United States vs. Nixon – with a series of major and minor figures facing ratcheting pressure of legal fees, not to mention fines and jail – as the branches sort out conflicts.

" 'The stand-off became even more immediate when the White House counsel's office released a blistering letter essentially daring House Democrats to sue, and vowing the White House 'cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.'"

"There is no grounds for impeachment. President Trump did nothing wrong."
But his innocence has not stopped Democrats before. Why would it stop them now?
Democrats have wasted the last 2 1/2-plus years chasing the Impeachment Fairy rather than accept the results of the 2016 election. They have tried the 25th Amendment, the emoluments clause, and cajoling electors to the Electoral College to change their votes all in a vain effort to overturn the election.

. . .
 The Bluffpeachment  "The current situation in Washington is, in the language of poker, a bluff.  The Democrats are bluffing; they have only weak cards in their hand.  They actually have nothing against Trump.  That's all they have ever had." . . .
"What awaits the president after impeachment?  The answer is...nothing.  Impeachment is a purely political maneuver, and the president remains to fulfill his duties until the end of his term, knowing that the House is unhappy with him.  The last well known example is President Bill Clinton, who was impeached in 1998 (but acquitted by the Senate).  And so what?  Nothing — he continued to work." . . .

Ian Macfarlane

READ: White House letter to Pelosi rejecting cooperation in impeachment inquiry

The Hill  "The White House on Tuesday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats saying it would not cooperate with their impeachment inquiry into President Trump over his dealings with Ukraine.
"Accusing Pelosi and her colleagues of "seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election," White House counsel Pat Cipollone in his letter said Trump and members of his administration "cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances" but stopped short of calling for the House to hold a vote on impeachment.

• "Read the letter from Cipollone here. " 
• White House Letter to Speaker Pelosi, Et Al. 10.08.2019

Trump Administration Orders EU Ambassador Not to Testify in Impeachment Probe

. . . "However, as many conservative outlets stressed, the transcript of the phone call with Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows Trump did not threaten to withhold aid. Zelensky has confirmed no one pressured him into starting an investigation."

Democrats Constructing Impeachment Star Chamber of Whistleblowers and Leakers

Weaponization of whistleblower laws is yet another breach of norms in an effort to unwind the 2016 election and manipulate the 2020 election.

Democrats must honor the Constitution and the rule of law more than they hate this President. They fail in this. TD

"Circulating claims of Trump-Russian collusion prior to the 2016 election didn’t work.

Using foreign-supplied fake intelligence, from a British spy who utilized Russian sources, to obtain surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team didn’t work.

"Intimidating Electoral College Electors to change their votes after the election didn’t work.

Having the Director of the FBI lie to, set up and try to entrap the president didn’t work.

"Having that same FBI Director leak memos to the media to manufacture grounds for a Special Counsel didn’t work.

"Trying to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare the president unable to perform the job didn’t work.

"Two years of the Mueller Investigation didn’t work.

"Three years of a permanent crisis news cycle meant to paralyze the administration didn’t work.

"After all these failures to unwind the 2016 election, Democrats and the mainstream media are trying a new tactic: Create a Star Chamber “impeachment” process fueled by anonymous whistleblowers and selective leaks that is not so much designed to remove the president, though they would if they could, but to manipulate the 2020 election." . . .

https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/

Hillary! She's baaaaak! UPDATED!

Who Ordered This Clinton Comeback Tour  . . . "Asked by Jane Pauley of CBS News if she thought it would be harder for a woman to defeat Trump next year, the former secretary of state said that she didn’t think so. “Look, there were many funny things that happened in my election that will not happen again. And I’m hoping that both the public and press understand the way Trump plays the game,” she said.
Clinton implies that Trump stole or rigged the election — elsewhere in the interview, she refers to him as “an illegitimate president” — and that this explains her loss.

 

“ 'You know, Jane, it was like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado,” she added. Corrupt! Human! Tornado! An astonishing turn of phrase that she apparently thought worth repeating this morning:" . . .

Clinton’s showed no interest in running for president again. But if this is her version of a comeback, a new grab for relevance right when a prominent former Democratic candidate for president might be a useful campaigner for someone else, it’s going to backfire. All she’s doing is making herself radioactive.

Hillary Clinton's big comeback begins Tuesday  "Media attention will intensify on Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. The former first lady, senator, secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate is ready for another round in the public arena. She has a new book arriving, written with the help of a very close relative. Behold. Here comes “The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience” — all 464 pages of it.

"Indeed, the new book of essays now landing on the shelves is written by Mrs. Clinton and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, is published by Simon & Schuster. Some informed observers speculate the book could be yet another indicator — along with increased public appearances and commentary — that Mrs. Clinton pines for a political comeback."
"What kind of comeback? Oh, maybe the bumper stickers will read BIDEN/CLINTON 2020, WARREN/CLINTON 2020 — or even CLINTON/CLINTON 2020. Who the heck knows?
“ 'Word on the political street now is the rumbling that the impeachment probe launched by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the crack that opens the door for another presidential run by Hillary Clinton. This time, the thinking goes, Hillary would be running with vindication that the 2016 election was ‘stolen’ from her and she can ascend in 2020 to reclaim the mantle for her party and the majority of the country that voted for her,” writes Nate Ashworth, editor in chief of Election Central." . . .

Chelsea tells talk show host she feels need to protect Mom from Trump supporters

Hillary Clinton ‘Communes’ with the Spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt (Snopes) . . . "While many media outlets reported that Woodward’s book documented Clinton holding seances and “speaking to the dead,” Dr. Jean Houston, the advisor who worked with Clinton during these “imaginary chats,” said that the exercise was more akin to brainstorming than a religious ritual: . . .  How Hillary’s Seances Led Democrats To Embrace The Occult

Clinton discussed her admiration for Eleanor Roosevelt "Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s affair in a Sunday interview, saying, “It can be gutsy” for the wife to stay in the marriage." . . .

UPDATE:  Hillary: No one told me about this shocking, “godforsaken” obstacle in 2016, or something  . . . “ 'And now the godforsaken Electoral College”? Just as a reminder, the Electoral College has been the method of electing American presidents since 1789. It’s not a secret that the overall popular vote does not matter for presidential elections, especially since 2000’s Bush-Gore contest. Is it too much to ask that presidential candidates familiarize themselves with the 237-year-old instructions for American governance before running for office?"  . . . Shame on Jane Pauley of CBS for her fawning over this woman.

Fox News Political Hack Donna Brazile Runs Poll Asking If Trump Is A “Legitimate President”…It Backfires In A BIG Way

100%FedUp  "She’s the former Chairwoman of the DNC and is also a cheater who gave Hillary Clinton questions prior to a debate in 2016. She tries to come off as neutral but she’s a snake in the grass.
"Brazile is one of the latest people Fox News has hired to become more leftist in their reporting. Does Fox News go along with the poll that Brazile tweeted out?
"Does Fox News political hack Donna Brazil not know about the Electoral College?
"President Trump won the 2016 election fair and square!"
"Brazile probably wasn’t expecting the replies to her poll and the numbers that were way higher for President Trump."

I loved this reply to Brazile:

How Small States Lose When They Abandon the Electoral College

Intellectual Takeout

"The question then is this: Will there ever be a coalition of 270 so that America loses the electoral college? And what happens to the American republic if that does come to pass?"

Change our Constitution and upend our electoral process for this woman?

"Calls for the abolition of the Electoral College have persisted in the three years since President Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election without winning the popular vote.

"But abolishing the Electoral College in the normal way – via amending the Constitution – is a bit more arduous than proponents like. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called amending the Constitution to change or eliminate the Electoral College “more theoretical than real” according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

“ 'It’s largely a dream because the Constitution is… hard to amend,” Ginsburg said. “I know that from the experience.”

"Since it is hard to amend the Constitution, some states are trying to circumvent the process by pushing for popular vote presidential elections.

"Since Trump’s election, five states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC.) States who participate in this pledge agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but only if the participating states account for an absolute majority of electoral votes.

"The shocking thing is not the fact that this compact exists – it was founded in 2006 – but that so many small states have joined. The Electoral College is meant to ensure that states with small populations are able to have some say in who is president and what the president focuses on. The issues affecting these states stay in play precisely because candidates do need to worry about how these smaller states vote. It is curious then to see small states disregard this safeguard placed in the Constitution.

"One might expect larger states like California and New York to work toward a national popular vote, for doing so would allow presidential candidates to focus on them more. It only takes 11 heavily populated states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency after all." . . .

We Don't Trust You

"We can’t entrust our liberties to your dirty hands." 

Entire article Ann Coulter  "Like all Americans, I’ve been deeply moved and horrified by the recent spate of mass shootings. Surely, I thought, there must be some commonsense gun regulations that could put an end to the carnage — red-flag laws, longer waiting periods, age limits, something!

"Leaving aside the usual suspects, who are rushing to the microphones to demand the immediate confiscation of all guns, liberals are appealing to us to come together in good faith and formulate a plan to keep guns out of the hands of these monsters, using fair process and common sense. 

"The only problem is that no one on their side believes in good faith, fair process or common sense. Here’s the reality: We don’t trust the other side, nor should we. 

"Americans used to be able to rely on two bulwarks to protect us from stupidity: 

"1) Legal process — The genius of our founders was to strictly limit the power of capricious, and often armed, government officials and to create a government of laws that made major changes difficult, but not impossible. 

"You want a new amendment to the Constitution? Get 38 states to ratify it, two-thirds of the Senate to vote for it, the president to sign it. There — you’ve changed the constitution. You oppose a law? Run for office, put a proposition on the ballot, donate to a campaign, persuade your fellow citizens — or move to a different state. 

"2) Common sense — We also used to be able to assume that a basic reasonableness undergirded our society, flowing across generational lines, political divides, racial differences and policy disputes. Until the 1970s, for example, federal courts mostly enforced actual legal and constitutional rights on the books. The other branches of government tended to perform their roles in good faith — or at least not in obvious bad faith. 

"Whether you were a Taft Republican or a JFK Democrat, you believed that we had a border, that people here illegally would be processed according to law, that there were two sexes, that free speech was a hallmark of our nation, and that a kid could dress up as a cowboy or Indian for Halloween without being branded a “racist.”

"Naturally, therefore, my first instinct was to assume that our shared respect for process and decency remained. But I now realize that’s wrong." . . .

"In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin. 

"Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants. 

"In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman. 

"Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake. 

"They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants. 

"Apparently, everyone born in the last 5,000 years, right up until June 26, 2015, was a hateful bigot. 

"Since the 1980s, nearly every time Americans have been allowed to vote on illegal immigration, they’ve opposed it — denying government services to illegal aliens, denying bail to illegal aliens, imposing English language requirements, allowing police to request documentation from suspected illegal aliens and on and on and on. 

"All of these democratically achieved results were met with rage, insults, prejudice — and often a court overturning the vote. 

"This culminated in 2016, when Americans decided to make an utterly preposterous candidate not a mayor or congressman, not even a governor, but president of the United States based on his promise to deport illegal aliens and build a wall. 

"We know how that turned out. (Don’t weep for Brexit voters. Britons have only been waiting three years to get what they voted for. We’ve been waiting decades.) 

"It’s not the underlying issue in any of these examples that’s the problem — it’s the flouting of the democratic process. I’m not saying: We trusted you and got a bad result. I am saying: We trusted you, but you abandoned the Constitution and the law to get the result that you could not win honestly. 

"At least we still have our common sense! Surely, we can count on the next generation to believe in free speech down to the marrow of their bones. They clearly understand that college campuses, whatever else they are, must always be bastions of open inquiry and far-reaching debate. They obviously recognize the wisdom and majesty of the Constitution’s Electoral College. 

"Nope! None of that is true. 

"Actress Debra Messing is collecting names of Trump supporters for a new Hollywood blacklist. Armed and masked left-wing brown-shirts patrol the streets of Portland, Oregon, beating up suspected Trump supporters. I tweet, “It’s a nice day,” and 2,000 people respond that they hope I will die. 
"We’re dealing with people who are not honest brokers. We can no longer have any expectation of good faith, sound process or common sense. 

"In this environment, it’s preposterous to believe that we can start putting asterisks on the Second Amendment and hope that it will survive. 

"We can’t entrust our liberties to your dirty hands." 

The Breathtaking Arrogance Of Pete Buttigieg

"If, as some say, Pete Buttigieg is the face of the future Democratic Party, then that Party will be even more insufferable and intolerant than the current incarnation"

Pat Cross

Paul Mirengoff  "My conservative cousin formerly from New York (now from California) has closely followed presidential politics since the days of Dwight Eisenhower. He finds in Pete Buttigieg an arrogance he hasn’t come across before, not even from Barack Obama.

Pete Buttigieg may well be the most arrogant candidate ever to run for a major party’s nomination in American History. Start with his record as South Bend, Indiana Mayor.

Buttigieg admits to being a failure at managing this small city’s police department. In Mayor Pete’s view the lessons learned from this big fiasco make him the best choice for Commander-In-Chief. What arrogance!

Silly me, back in the day when I interviewed candidates for promotions I would look for people who performed well at previous jobs. Instead I should have learned from the Buttigieg school of management that failure is often a better recommendation for promotion than success.

What nonsense! What arrogance!

Then there’s his sweeping proposal to change the very nature of our Republic. Abolish the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. . .End the Senate filibuster. . . .

Full article

We Don't Trust You

Ann Coulter

It's not the underlying issue in any of these examples that's the problem -- it's the flouting of the democratic process. I'm not saying: We trusted you and got a bad result. I am saying: We trusted you, but you abandoned the Constitution and the law to get the result that you could not win honestly.

     "Like all Americans, I've been deeply moved and horrified by the recent spate of mass shootings. Surely, I thought, there must be some commonsense gun regulations that could put an end to the carnage -- red-flag laws, longer waiting periods, age limits, something!
     "Leaving aside the usual suspects, who are rushing to the microphones to demand the immediate confiscation of all guns, liberals are appealing to us to come together in good faith and formulate a plan to keep guns out of the hands of these monsters, using fair process and common sense.
     "The only problem is that no one on their side believes in good faith, fair process or common sense. Here's the reality: We don't trust the other side, nor should we.
Americans used to be able to rely on two bulwarks to protect us from stupidity:

1) Legal process -- The genius of our founders was to strictly limit the power of capricious, and often armed, government officials and to create a government of laws that made major changes difficult, but not impossible." . . .2) Common sense -- We also used to be able to assume that a basic reasonableness undergirded our society, flowing across generational lines, political divides, racial differences and policy disputes. Until the 1970s, for example, federal courts mostly enforced actual legal and constitutional rights on the books. The other branches of government tended to perform their roles in good faith -- or at least not in obvious bad faith.

     "Whether you were a Taft Republican or a JFK Democrat, you believed that we had a border, that people here illegally would be processed according to law, that there were two sexes, that free speech was a hallmark of our nation, and that a kid could dress up as a cowboy or Indian for Halloween without being branded a "racist."
. . . 
. . . "Surely, we can count on the next generation to believe in free speech down to the marrow of their bones. They clearly understand that college campuses, whatever else they are, must always be bastions of open inquiry and far-reaching debate. They obviously recognize the wisdom and majesty of the Constitution's Electoral College.

Nope! None of that is true.

"Actress Debra Messing is collecting names of Trump supporters for a new Hollywood blacklist. Armed and masked left-wing brown-shirts patrol the streets of Portland, Oregon, beating up suspected Trump supporters. I tweet, "It's a nice day," and 2,000 people respond that they hope I will die." . . .

Will 2020 Be a Repeat of 2004 for Democrats?

Victor Davis Hanson

Fifteen years ago, the Democrats backed off from the hard left, taking the safe route in nominating a boring and sedate party man — and came close to winning against a controversial incumbent president.

"Democrats by 2004 had become obsessed with defeating incumbent President George W. Bush.
"Four years earlier, in the 2000 election, Bush had won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Democrats were still furious that Bush supposedly had been “selected” by the Supreme Court over the contested vote tally in Florida rather than “elected” by the majority of voters.
"By late 2003, Bush’s popularity had dipped because of the unpopular Iraq War, which a majority in both houses of Congress approved but had since disowned.
"Bush was attacked nonstop as a Nazi, fascist, and war criminal. “Bush lied, people died” was the new left-wing mantra.
"Talk of Bush’s impeachment was in the air. Democrats remembered that his father, George H. W. Bush, had lost his reelection bid in 1992. They hoped the same fate awaited his son.
"Neither presidential candidate Al Gore nor vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman from the defeated 2000 ticket wanted to run again in 2004. Senator John Edwards was a charismatic newcomer candidate, but he was increasingly proving to be a smarmy empty suit." . . .