Humor, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Hillary In The Afternoon

51 Comments

She had to be “sobered up.” Hey, no problem as long as she’s ready for that 3 AM phone call. Let’s make her president!

And then there’s this:

Hillary Clinton has been photographed drinking alcohol on numerous occasions, and has promised to consume a large amount of “adult beverages” if elected president.

She is also, according to reports, reluctant to drink water, a common method used by individuals trying to “sober up.”

See, now here’s where Marco Rubio would clearly have been a better choice.

51 thoughts on “Hillary In The Afternoon”

  2. The problem is the timing. This issue has to be dismissed if not vetted before now. Thanks again, main stream media.

    1. “The problem is the timing. This issue has to be dismissed if not vetted before now. Thanks again, main stream media.”

      Yes to both points…and Trump is also fighting powerfully persuasive to women emotional arguments like this:

      ELIZABETH WARREN: “Nasty” Women Will Come Out And Vote To Take Out Trump

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9F1tGArjeg

      For the record I am still likely voting for Trump; but he is in serious trouble with women. Those suburban white college educated women are slaughtering him in states like Pennsylvania. Probably why he is borderline too close to call in Texas of all places as well; the women of Texas (& Hispanics–documented & otherwise) strongly against him. Florida (and Ohio) are must wins for him; he needs to hold on to the rest of the South. Maybe poach Michigan and Indiana if he hopes to win.

      1. Which is part of the reason Ann Coulter is right that woman should not have the right to vote. Woman, right or wrong, are trained to win arguments. The comedian Bill Burr has it right (and is turning this franchise around!) When a woman has the facts on her side, she argues the facts with laser precision and will not be sidetracked. When she’s wrong she will hit you with an emotional ploy to knock you off guard. Works every time on the unaware male.

        Real men are protectors and can be trusted with woman’s rights. Only some woman understand this. The others are harming themselves. Megyn Kelly has decided the most important issue is that Trump is a ‘sexual predator.’ It isn’t. As a lawyer she knows that such terms can not be used in court (and she would be repremanded) without substantial proof. But that doesn’t matter to an emotional woman even though she knows that truth. Megyn needs to be protected from herself.

        The country needs protection from childish reasoning.

        Arguing something is wrong, when it clearly is, but being unable to move on to the more important issues is a lack of maturity.

        1. “Which is part of the reason Ann Coulter is right that woman should not have the right to vote.”

          Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS – and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
          Black Pigeon Speaks
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

          Afraid that ship has sailed on the subject of women getting the vote whether I agree with you (& Coulter) or not. Nothing to be done for that.

          If you look at this handy dandy electoral map:

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

          Trump has to flip all the toss-up states in the South and Pennsylvania to get to 270; he really needs to shore up support somehow in Penn to win. That’s where I heard he is getting creamed in Penn’s suburbs among women. Penn is listed (on the map) as a toss-up so maybe not hopeless; but he needs all the toss-up to go his way or flip one completely out of the democratic clutches. Maybe Michigan? His “35% tariffs” threat on auto companies if they relocate to Mexico might resonate there.

          3. Of course you say, but how about all the issues she doesn’t cover. Don’t they deserve an of course?

            She claims she does cover them, which is false. Even when she does, she ignores Newt’s point.

            He’s accused of kissing pretty girls. Hillary is accused of a crime network that controls even the elites in the opposing party using billions of taxpayer dollars. She has corrupted numerous agencies both govt. and non., including justice.

            There is no comparison.

          5. Sexual assault; which has already had witnesses of some accusations being flat out lies. You know the story about not defending some because they aren’t you until finally they get around to you? That’s what we have here.

            Every guy that kissed a girl in the black & white movie days was by today’s definition a sexual assault… and they got married in the next scene! Today (after mindreading) you’d better have a signed contract with witnesses to hold hands, but she still has the right to afterword decide she was raped. So that real sexual assault is dumbed down.

            So the media, including Kelly, slants things by selective non-coverage and you want me to list all the things they don’t cover? Did you know there are important things (like the potential beginning of a nuclear war in Europe? or the ridiculous idea that voting machines are consistently switching votes for one party might be a bigger issue worthy of some news time?) that might be more important than what a waitress (and they have no problem doing it) has to deal with as a part of their daily job.

          8. He did not say he likes to grab their genitals. He said [some] woman would allow the rich and famous to do it. Are you suggesting he’s wrong? Look up gold digger on Youtube.

            Or just use common sense.

          10. Forgive my coarseness, but I have to say, when I read the boast about “grab them by the pussy”, I assumed it was metaphorical, like “when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow” or talking about a woman leading a man around by his dick. It never occurred to me to suppose he meant it literally, if only because I have trouble imagining how it would even work mechanically.

            (If my imagination is inadequate here, I implore you all not to elucidate.)

          11. Sorry, but it’s pretty simple. It means grab them by the crotch. Surely this is not beyond your understanding?

            Trump is not a metaphorical kind of guy. He’s pretty simple to understand.

    1. She is famous for her drinking. Also, some people, like Presidents, work on the weekend. If you are too drunk to work, then you have a problem.

    2. Looks like a smear with little to support it

      Sort of like the hockey stick data. Except in this case, people have seen Hillary drink and stumble.

      1. “Smear” is a stay-out-of-jail free card. You merely need to call something a “smear” (the shame, what kind of low-down deplorables engage in a smear), and that ends any further response.

        1. Isn’t interesting how our friends to the left blame foreign powers for their problems and claim their political opponents are foreign agents?

          Its the Hugo Chavez or Castro doctrine.

  5. I once had a long conversation with a former Marine guard, who told me some interesting things about Henry Kissinger. The marine was an embassy guard in Germany, and tended to visiting diplomats. According to him – and I make no representation other than what he said – he would deliver two bottles of Scotch to Kissinger every morning, for breakfast.

    I actually don’t doubt it very much. Winston Churchill drank Hine champagne by the quart with his meals (all of them) and claret in between. He made no effort to hide it. And there was a famous exchange between he and a female member of Parliament:

    Bessie Braddock MP: “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.”

    Winston Churchill: “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow
    I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.”

    The wonderful thing here is that Hillary combines the two!

    1. Churchill sexually assaulted an ugly woman? Assault obviously and sexual because she’s a woman. Or how about the rage of the SJW because a man at work had the audacity to say “hello” when she confronted him? “You don’t know me you M.F’r. Why are you saying hello! “

  6. When you are running for President you have to eat and drink a lot of stuff that you wouldn’t normally touch – or touch at that part of the day.

    On the other hand, if she were drunk a lot, that would be a more plausible explanation of her stumbling and bumbling than the myriad of diseases people have listed as a cause.

    might also explain how she had to be carried into the car in NY City but emerged ~90 minutes later all fine and dandy.

  7. I have, what is the correct word, interacted with the gait and motions of someone who had consumed alcohol (ice dancing partner) and with persons with Parkinson’s and related progressive neurological disease affecting motor function.

    Alcohol gives a person a very soft and pliable muscle tone.

    Having partnered with many skaters over the years, people vary greatly in their “muscle affect.” Some partners are quite stiff and rigid in what robotics engineers would call the “mechanical impedance” they offer to another person in a cooperating or assistive task (such as dance partnering). Other partners are much more soft, pliant, and fluid. Enough alcohol can move someone from one end of this spectrum to the other.

    Parkinson’s sufferers are stiff as stiff can be — they are kind of like dance partners who could use a drink to loosen up. Watching some of the Hillary Clinton videos and seeing how she tenses up in the shoulders and grips the arm of a person assisting her, I have been there, done that, unfortunately all-too-well experienced much of that. Watching Ms. Clinton brings back many personal memories.

      1. Ms. Clinton’s muscle tone doesn’t look loose in the loss-of-balance-on-steps incidents I have seen. She looks tensed up. It looks like progressive neurological disease, not a drinking problem to me.

        I know what I have experienced and I know what I see. I see things that bring back personal memories of the type of progressive neurological disease that is all too common as people age and all too many family members have watched happen.

  9. [From above]

    Tim: “… Trump; but he is in serious trouble with women.”

    Ken Anthony: “Which is part of the reason Ann Coulter is right that woman should not have the right to vote.”

    Why stop with disenfranchising women who favor Ms. Clinton over Mr. Trump by 10% when you could also argue against blacks having the vote since they favor Ms. Clinton by 77%.  Going further and excluding all non-whites would give Mr. Trump a 14% lead, while excluding women alone only gives him a 5% lead.

    Or is open misogyny socially acceptable while racism isn’t?

    [Numbers from the Fox 2016-10-26 poll.]

    1. I’d say we should go back to property owners.

      Gosh, that would leave me out. How can I possibly say such a thing?

    3. Why stop with disenfranchising women who favor Ms. Clinton

      Kirk, this is known as a strawman. Ann can explain her own reasons but I guarantee it is based on published data and has nothing specifically related to Hillary.

      Women are not men with vaginas. They have motivations that overlap those of men, but also some that do not. Men protect. Women get along. Totally different.

      1. And that means that one group should be disenfranchised in favor of the other? I thought that Mr. Trump’s supporters were supposed to be fighting Islam, not adopting it’s more extreme positions.

        1. Yes, when it puts the security of the state at risk (the only fundamental responsibility of the state) some people should be disenfranchised. How is this difficult for you to understand Kirk.

          Children should not vote. Illegals should not vote. Felons should not vote. Anyone risking the security of the state should not vote and there is credible evidence that includes a large percentage of woman. People on welfare for longer than is reasonable should not vote (this could be a good motivation to get off welfare for the civic minded.)

          I’m not aware of any data that makes a particular race a security risk (except Japanese during WW2.) So talking about blacks is typical conflation as an invalid argument.

          that means that one group should be disenfranchised in favor of the other?

          It would be idiotic otherwise as my examples should have proven and the reason couldn’t get more fundamental… security.

          Ann Coulter provides the evidence that a large percentage of woman can not be trusted with our countries sovereignty. Open borders Hillary and dem men are further examples.

      1. Jon, as Rand says…It doesn’t matter what Trump says.

        They feel they can speak for him because he’s not really human, just some cartoon figure. He didn’t get his billions working because they channel Elizabeth Warren.

        He’s the ultimate flim-flam man. We are all just stupid delusional deplorables… let the facts be damned.

        Because they said so….

    1. So I wonder if Huma has a text on her phone that admits knowledge of criminal wrong doing dating back prior to the FBI Investigation?

      WikiLeaks has already shown emails from Huma admitting Hillary knew various things that she did was wrong. But none of the WikiLeaks data is admissible in a criminal case. No chain of custody exists, and it only could exist if a hacker outed themselves, stood trial, and then after conviction, enough people still believed the hacker. So no chain of custody. But a text or email on Huma’s phone? There’s chain of custody.

  12. Somewhat off topic.

    Let’s listen to the Audio Tape…this is Hillary’s voice in 2006:

    “Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

    “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” ”

    Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

    Not sure why Chomsky was taken aback…..Clinton is an old hand at fixing elections. It’s a tool in her toolbox as they say.

  13. Events are overtaking this thread.

    Our local TV station’s Web site has “Emails found during Wiener probe” — am I making this up, see http://www.channel3000.com/

    This is a true “kto kogo” moment regarding Comey, Hillary, The Donald, the two Wieners along with the question regarding who is probing whom — a true Leninist political moment.

Comments are closed.