Hillary Clinton has reverted to calling supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump names again. If Mrs. Clinton was a man, she’d have tanked her campaign just as Mitt Romney did when he spouted off his now-infamous “47 percent remarks” in his losing 2012 campaign.
Currently, the Facebook page for Day on the Day suggest Clintons’ supporters are following her lead.
Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly called Trump supporters names for one reason. We disagree with her on foreign wars, foreign policy, wealth redistribution, and tax hikes (including Democrats’ Obamacare tax bill) as well as national security.
In September, there was no mistaking the arrogance and spite in her voice:
“Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables” which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”
She went to note “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America”.
Well, I’d have to say not only did she lie when she dismissed millions of Americans as “deplorables” and such. She gave us an idea of her temperament and it is not a positive one.
Mrs. Clinton didn’t stop there.
In Florida recently, she attacked hard working Americans again:
“I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump…”
Now it’s easy to understand why she’d attack us. Mrs. Clinton is a neocon globalist who believes in transferring wealth from the US to other countries, a socialist approach to taking money from some Americans to hand out to others (even those who are foreign nationals in the country illegally), and in open borders.
While she hit Trump for proposing a temporary ban on migrants from countries who are hostile to the United States, Mrs. Clinton may have had another of her “short circuits.”
President Barack Obama actually froze migration from the Muslim majority country of Iraq in 2011. Obama has short-circuited on that matter too, but that is what run of the mill politicians do. Tell you one thing and do another.
There’s a bizarre twist to all this name-calling Democrats are so adept at. A recent Project Veritas video provides the latest example after a very wealthy Democrat donor decided to unload on black people who support Trump:
“In the video secretly filmed at a fundraiser for North Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Deborah Ross, Barber compares black people who support Donald Trump are like Jews who supported Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.”
That, my friends, is a very low blow and the comments, in my opinion, are the product of a very troubled mind. For someone to say that about people whose skin happens to be black is truly reprehensible.
When Romney made his ill-fated remarks caught on a secret video illegally filmed in Florida during the 2012 season at a private fundraiser, media went apoplectic. One Washington Post pundit who is a current Clinton supporter devoted an essay to the horror of candidates slamming voters.
Romney’s comments came off exactly like Clinton’s, but that shouldn’t surprise us. Both candidates’ policies and donors, regardless of differences in political parties, are very similar. The big difference involved media coverage. Most legacy media still pretending to be objective although they aren’t kept Romney in the negative news trends for weeks. With Mrs. Clinton, media collectively yawned.
Marginalizing the opposition is a time-honored tradition among Democrats because you make people afraid to vote for your opponent. This was the strategy during the days of Jim Crow racism, a Democrat product.
If you read comments to two articles I ran ads for on my site’s Facebook page, you will see that Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are following suit.
Most people supporting her and commenting on the articles obviously didn’t read a word I wrote. Quite a few bought into the myth Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong with her decision to shield her secretary of state communications from the American people. Even more Clinton supporters simply did what their candidate did—attacked supporters of Trump on a personal basis. Her supporters have also committed physical violence against the opposition, but most news media are too busy attempting to put her in the White House to cover that.
Thus, should the country be unfortunate enough to elect a second controversial Clinton to the White House, thereby vesting untold power in a single scandal plagued family, those of us who didn’t vote for her won’t have a president represent us, and that is by her rhetorical directive.
Chew on that if you’re sitting on a couch November 8.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 3, 2016)
If you can possibly offer a small tip to help us keep operating, we would much appreciate it. We don’t place ads that track you, and we are currently near a point where we will have to stop publishing without support. We aren’t paid by a political party, PAC, or the government.