How pathetic can Hillary Clinton get.

I think you're crazy. I never said any of those statements, nor do I support them.

Why do you feel compelled to pseudo-defend one crazy person by blurting out crazy **** some other crazy person said.

It is clear what Clinton is saying. She is the authoritarian promoting mindless lemming-devotion to the elite rulers. They know best.

Shameful response from you. Don't let them control you so utterly.

Call them on their ****, no matter which alphabet they put behind their names.

Quote Blickers:


Quote cameronleon:

Are you crazy? You don't care about how likely you are to get murdered, you just want to be sure that if you are murdered, it's for a more acceptable reason?

Lash, you misunderstood my post. I'm not "crazy".

I know you didn't say those things and I take your word for it that you don't support them.



Clinton wasn't saying that "trust your leaders" is the primary point of Orwell's novel.



She's saying that Trumpism actively works to sow distrust of the people and institutions which have historically helped to form a general consensus as to what is factually the case. If leaders lie, of course you shouldn't trust them. But to label the MSM "fake news", ignore overwhelming scientific evidence, and accuse — without evidence — opposition politicians of being criminals is a sort of dystopian behavior which resembles that of 1984. Ideally we're supposed to have trustworthy leaders, an honest press, and an impartial justice system — Trumpism succeeds by undermining that trust.

Personally, I don't automatically trust political leaders. But there have always been enough decent politicians, enough good journalists, and enough sound science for most of us to develop and hold a realistic appraisal of what's going on.



No, she really isn't.



You should apply this to your own political thinking.

Maybe she misunderstood what you wrote, but that doesn't mean you're not crazy.

Saw her on an interview the other night. Babbling hag.

You're correct, of course. But it's not a conclusion deducible from my post alone.

If some republican twisted middle-school Orwell to go completely against the author's intent, I don't think you'd be explaining for them.

It's a travesty to see her do it. Orwell was all about being wary of the emerging powers, and not being lulled into a brainless complacency, happily accepting any replacement for a hated regime

Always question. Question everything and everyone.

That crazy narcissistic gasbag doesn't get to re-write Orwell.

Do you know Clinton also blamed women for her loss, saying they wanted to please their husbands and boyfriends? Thinking about the most-hated sweepstakes--I think that's on par with the pussy-grabbing statement.

Orwell's 1984 is one of those cultural totems that has long ceased to exist solely in its original form as a novel. It's regularly referred to and used as a kind of shorthand for 'existing in a totalitarian state' and any time a work gets transformed this way you can pretty much count on it being misused, mangled, or misappropriated in some way. Clinton wasn't giving a book report. She was free-associating, trying to draw a parallel with Trumpism. While I agree that her attempt seemed a bit forced and was not completely successful I don't agree with the Washington Times interpretation:



The reference to Orwell was basically an aside and can be left out. Her main point is about the tendency of authoritarian regimes to redefine reality, to spread doubt, and to ignite anger and resentment. And, as pointed out by Walter Benjamin, if this can be done at large public rallies, so much the better.


I don't doubt that there were women who didn't like her and were happy to tell everyone that the weren't going to vote for her just because she was a woman. I might even know some of them. But you've got to be more objective here — she's not blaming her loss solely on women. She's just enumerating the many factors which contributed to her defeat. Comey, Trump's campaign style, Wikileaks, Sanders, the "vast right-wing conspiracy", etc.

Look, I wish she'd just go away. I'm getting tired of having to elucidate her statements in response to what I consider misplaced, mistaken, or malicious criticism. But she's not going away and neither are her rabid detractors.

Personally I think it's damning that first woman to win a major party's presidential nomination only got there because she's the wife of a former president. To me, that totally skews her "feminist credentials". I think she showed herself to be a good public servant but I don't think she was inspirational enough to be a "leader". Most of the other accusations against her — the trail of bodies, enabling her husband's infidelities, being a "crook" — no, I just see that stuff as predictable political smear tactics, like the "Swift Boat Veterans" or the "birthers" or Willie Horton. I don't need that stuff to not want her as my president since I already felt that way.

Tell you what, Lash, I'll make a deal with you. I won't mention the woman again...if you don't.

And if they are trying to gain or retain power, don't believe their answer.