Clinton-Machado 2016

Chateau: “In Post-America, fat-shaming is a mortal sin while cheating on your fiancé, being filmed on camera having illicit sex, driving your boyfriend’s getaway car from the scene of a murder, threatening the life of a judge, bearing the bastard spawn of a drug lord, and happily lying while under the direction of a presidential candidate and a colluding media about your “20 years of humiliation” from experiencing a gentle and encouraging chiding about your weight are trivial details that should not reflect poorly on an attention whore’s character.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Time for the campaign commercial:

“CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.

CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.”

[Announcer]: Who is Alicia Machado?

1. Miss Universe who gained 50 pounds after winning title, managed to keep it because Donald Trump came up with a workable solution to the problem.

2. Alleged to have driven a getaway car from an attempted assassination at a funeral, but she couldn’t have, because she had not one, but two, alibis.

3. Threatened to kill a Mexican judge for charging her boyfriend with murder.

4. Had sex on a Spanish reality TV show, ruining her relationship with another man to whom she was engaged.

[Insert film clip of Alicia, with “oooh, tenges la pinga divina” — it will pass, because the FCC doesn’t know Spanish, either]

5. Dated and had a child with a notorious Mexican drug lord, and we have proof that the child was born in this country, and is a US citizen by birth …..

[Insert visual of Miami birth certificate]

So who is Alicia Machado?

She’s a new American Citizen! And

“CLINTON: She’s voting in November!”

Don’t let Donald Trump shame America over being overweight. Let’s find a better way.

Clinton-Machado 2016.

* Did anyone else notice that during the debate, Hillary said, “So we’re now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy…” I heard this and confirmed it with the transcript.

“On the precipice” definition: The brink of a dangerous situation. A headlong fall or descent.

Perhaps an inadvertent truth from Hilltron?

* You know what Marvin Gaye’s father’s last words were to his son?

“Now you’re gonna listen to one of my 45′s.”

* His trans dad who killed him got off lightly. Six years suspended and five years probation.

* OT: Overton Window

First Douthat links to Steve with implicit approval…

Clinton’s Samantha Bee Problem

Then Robert Draper links to VDare!

How Donald Trump Set Off a Civil War Within the Right-Wing Media

First they ignore you, then they denounce you, then they hyperlink to you, …

* So now Trump is pissed and next time he is not going to listen to his advisers. Whether this will backfire or not I don’t know, but in the next debate I would bet you any amount that Trump is going to go after Hillary hammer and tongs and the moderators too. Trump won the primaries by being Trump, not by being “Presidential”. Anyone who wants a conventional figure is already voting for Hillary anyway. Trump has to sell himself as the change candidate.

* Steve, you noted the bitter resentments of the female writing staff on Law and Order populated the criminal casting as Rich White Men who as we know are always engaging in violence. And not the kind of “sexy domination” like the Tsarnaevs that led nurses to fist-fights over who would take care of Bob Dylan Tsarnaev.

Hillary lecturing White men plays well among White women. Its why Trump cannot win and the route of politics is a non-starter. Most educated White women are objectively anti-White, as much for personal disappointment in the men around them as anything else.

Rather, White men should take a page from Black activists. BLM and other stuff made a giant pain for Democrats until the desires of no policing at all for Black people is met. I would not advocate mass civil disobedience but rather various actions designed to inflict as much political pain while being distributed and deniable.

That means unearthing every unflattering thing about political leaders, their families, and social connections and making them public in the most humiliating time and fashion. It means disrupting events by technical and social means, it means a constant level of pressure and pain until elites figure it is easier to give White men what they want than fight.

* Hillary has not cracked 50%, neither has Trump. He has the winning hand. Trade, immigration, healthcare, breaking up the status quo are all his issues. He should be pounding that message into the ground 24/7. Every day he squanders defending himself over a personal attack or slight is wasted opportunity to put out the message that will resonate.

He has to understand that every big time politico will get bogus political attacks just like businesses get bogus lawsuits slapped against them all the time. He needs to remind himself that when a business gets hit with a ludicrous lawsuit, the CEO doesn’t drop everything, investigate the claim, accumulate evidence and then personally lead the defense team in court. No, when a business gets such a lawsuit, they turn it over to their hired gun law firm to take care of.

It’s the same for these bogus personal attacks. I still plan on voting for the guy, but this does show bad judgement.

* Your comment is eerily similar to what the similarly obtuse Alan Rapaport wrote in the NY Times today: “Fact-checkers have found no evidence that Ms. Machado, who was featured in Playboy, appeared in a sex tape. Her critics may be referring to a risqué scene that she appeared in on a reality television show.”

And indeed, this is what everyone is referring to. Nor was it merely “risque”: it was a real or faux real act of sexual intercourse on a Spanish reality TV show, replete with language from Alicia about how she loves being “f***ed like a perra“, and extolling the taste and the divinity of her partner’s penis.

In the same vein, the Times headline reads: Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence), and the article also quotes a tweet from Hillary, “What kind of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories?”

The fundamental dishonesty of how they are handling this has got to get through to them at some point.

* I can see the argument that Trump shouldn’t be pursuing this Machado thing, but should focus instead on the issues.

But, of course, it’s been Hillary and the media who have been pushing at this as hard as they can, including even a New Yorker cover.

My instinct is that for him to push back hard is a very good thing to do, given all the variables, the fact that he still has over a month before the election, and the general facts of the case.

Machado as a spokesperson and icon for Hillary is completely indefensible. Shooting down her integrity is a slam dunk on a basket 5 ft high. It just requires of Joe Citizen a google to see how corrupt she is. And the chutzpah required of Hillary and the media to use her as an icon is just breathtaking — they really do think there’s no accountability when it comes to shaming people for allegedly politically incorrect behavior.

The Machado case shows not only Hillary’s vicious unfairness and incompetence. It shows how the media — including even the formerly august NY Times — is exactly as bad. You can’t put a pin between Hillary’s campaign and the media at this point, and this case illustrates like nothing else.

* Here is Vox’s desperate attempt at spin, under the headline “Donald Trump’s nasty, false tweetstorm against Alicia Machado proves how easy he is to bait”:

Trump’s mention of Machado’s past probably refers to the fact that she was once accused of threatening to murder a judge and driving a getaway car in an attempted murder. She was never charged with anything, but she doesn’t dispute the allegations, saying this week, “Everybody has a past. And I’m not a saint girl.”

The “sex tape” rumor, on the other hand, is completely false. Snopes looked into it and found that while Machado did once pose topless in Playboy and was portrayed having sex during a Real World-esque Spanish reality TV show, the footage from the show wasn’t explicit:

However, the so-called “sex tape” stemming from that incident, which is nothing more than some grainy, night-vision footage of a couple of covered figures writhing in a bed, hardly qualifies as explicit. And reality television being what it is, the scene the tape depicts was quite possibly staged or fabricated.

* I think Trump’s tweets were necessary and effective. Let’s remember the time line here.

Monday: Hillary, at the very end of the debate, rolls out Miss Piggy Machado, meant to be a death blow to Trump.

Tuesday: Consensus is that Trump did not lose the debate, and that polls show him edging upwards. The Hillary Camp (aka MSM) rolls out a series of pre-fab articles about Alicia Machado.

Wednesday-Thursday: The Alt Right (and the British Press) begin presenting answers to the question, “Who the heck is Alicia Machado?” The following series of revelations is almost entirely shut down by the MSM, who prefer to continue discussing Alicia as a victim.

Friday: Early AM, Trump sends out his tweets. The MSM _must_ respond to the content of Trump’s tweets, and as a result the cat is finally let out of the bag in all media, albeit barely landing on its feet as a result of the furious spinning, and here we are.

We can get back to pointing out Hilary’s incompetence tomorrow. Meanwhile, we can put Alicia in the same basket with Harambe and Pepe: the Untouchables of 2016.

* I’m no Trumpista, but it must be said: the election is rigged against Trump. The bad mic, the biased moderator, and the unflattering lighting constitute the proof. Almost makes me vote for the buffoon.

Posted in Alicia Machado | Comments Off on Clinton-Machado 2016

Hillary’s Debate Lies – With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative

Heather MacDonald writes:

Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.

Clinton also complained that “too many young African-American and Latino men end . . . up in jail for non-violent offenses.” In fact, the majority of prisoners in the U.S. are serving time for violent felonies. The enforcement of low-level public order offenses in New York City during the mayoralties of Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg actually lowered New York State’s prison population by intervening in criminal behavior early, before it ripened into a serious felony. Even as misdemeanor arrests increased in the city, felony arrests and felony incarcerations dropped. The number of jail inmates and convicts under parole and probation supervision in New York City dropped as well. Hillary Clinton may think that low-level public-order enforcement (otherwise known as “broken windows” policing) is racist, but law-abiding residents of high-crime communities beg the police to enforce public-order laws because they know that out of street disorder erupts gun violence and other forms of predation.

Clinton reiterated her call for “implicit-bias” training for officers. The premise of such training is that police officers are shooting black males out of such bias. Yet, four studies have come out this year alone that demolish this charge. They show that if there is bias among police officers in their shooting decisions, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. “Implicit-bias” training, based on a lie, is a grotesque waste of resources at a time when officers are desperate for more hands-on tactical training that will help them make those crucial shoot/don’t shoot decisions in the field, or avoid being put into such an excruciating situation in the first place.

Clinton claimed that “stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional.” No federal judge would have the power to declare pedestrian stops unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court put its constitutional imprimatur on the practice in 1965. Stop-and-frisk remains a lawful and essential police tactic. Criminologist David Weisburd examined the practice in New York City and found that it reduced crime in shooting hot spots. Federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin did rule that the New York Police Department’s practice of stops was racially biased, but her ruling applied only to the New York Police Department. That ruling was wholly unjustified and would likely have been reversed on appeal, had newly elected New York City mayor Bill de Blasio not dropped the appeal. Judge Scheindlin used a population benchmark for measuring the lawfulness of police actions: if police stops didn’t match population ratios, they were unconstitutional, in Scheindlin’s view. Such a methodology ignores the massive disparities in criminal offending in New York City. Blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Add Hispanic shootings to black shootings and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in New York City. Whites are 34 percent of the city’s population; they commit less than 2 percent of all shootings. Such disparities in gun violence mean that virtually every time the police are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has been shot—they are called to minority neighborhoods on behalf of minority victims, and, if any witness or victim is cooperating with the police, being given a description of a minority suspect. The reality of crime, not phantom police racism, determines the incidence of police activity, including pedestrian stops.

Clinton claimed that stop-and-frisk was “ineffective” and “did not do what it needed to do.” Felony crime dropped 85 percent from the early 1990s to the mid-2010s in New York City; more than 10,000 minority males were spared the violent death that they would have experienced had homicides remained at their early 1990s levels. Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of that crime drop, the longest and steepest on record; it’s hard to imagine anything more effective than New York’s proactive policing revolution. Stop-and-frisk deterred criminals from carrying guns. Equally importantly, it intervened in a range of other criminal behaviors. If an officer saw someone casing a store on a boulevard plagued with burglaries, or saw someone walking quickly behind an elderly lady in a neighborhood plagued with robberies, he would stop that person and ask a few questions. That stop may not have resulted in an arrest, but it could have averted the commission of a crime. Read on.

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* I like a lot of her City Journal stuff, and she’s shown some HBD sympathies, but she’s an admitted atheist. That’s not going to go over well.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Hillary’s Debate Lies – With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative

Trump Believes In Eugenics

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* This brouhaha over trump being a eugenicist….

Everyone is a eugenicist. If you used sperm from a sperm bank to produce your next child, wouldn’t you rather it came from a man who were tall, smart and athletic? Let’s not speculate, the facts clearly prove this true. Everyone would agree.

Some might say that it’s better to be safe than sorry, meaning that it can’t hurt, and could potentially be beneficial , to choose good sperm. Oh, well can we please apply that principle on a national level with regard to chaining the demographics of the West?

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Trump Believes In Eugenics

Was Crooked Hillary Duped About Alicia Machado?

Posted in Alicia Machado | Comments Off on Was Crooked Hillary Duped About Alicia Machado?

Hillary Navigates The Stairs With Help From The Secret Service

This woman is not well.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Hillary Navigates The Stairs With Help From The Secret Service