183 Comments
User's avatar
Indecisive decider's avatar

"We lose total control". Who is 'we'?

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

Is the foundation of this statement the belief/assumption that "they" ("we") are (always) entitled to "control"? Why are they entitled to control? Because they're so smart? So virtuous and pure? Or because they think they control all the power?

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

That's just how tyrants think, Mike.

They can't help themselves.

I suspect it's because they think they are somehow entitled to rule over the rest of us.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Not another Book. Christ on a bike.

Expand full comment
bestuvall's avatar

or on a crutch

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Or electric bike.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

I didn't emphasize another very important aspect of this psychopath's utterance. She believes she (and her Red Guards) should not just have "control" but TOTAL control. How is this monster NOT a TOTALITARIAN??

Expand full comment
Mrs. McFarland's avatar

Her, it’s her. How about we offer her amnesty is she just GTFA and never speaks again??

Expand full comment
bestuvall's avatar

the “village” that it takes

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

More like a commune.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Or a collective.

Communes were fun; you could at least smoke a joint or drop some acid now & then.

Expand full comment
Darius's avatar

BINGO

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

The same "we" who own "Our Democracy(TM)"

Expand full comment
Billy Masterson's avatar

@Indecisive decider

I believe George Carlin described who "we" is to Hillary over 30 years ago-

https://youtu.be/Nyvxt1svxso?si=u3bHiwlpVTMqq5R6

Expand full comment
michele burns's avatar

Well she couldn’t keep her own “dog on the porch” but now she wants to control free speech. 🤔

Expand full comment
Mister Delgado's avatar

I believe the best definition of "We", in this instance, is that if you have to ask who's in the club then you clearly do not qualify for membership.

Expand full comment
rtj's avatar

The blob.

Expand full comment
Mark Minor's avatar

Prescient Ian Curtis/Joy Division in 1979: She's Lost Control

Expand full comment
Damien McKenna's avatar

*chefkiss*

Short and to the point.

Expand full comment
Anteros Astrology's avatar

If Tim Walz is any indication the "we" includes the Chinese dictatorship. Are there any even actors left that this party of festering black mold hasn't brought into its fold? Why does it matter that Tim Walz lied about being in China during the Tiananmen Square massacre? Because he can’t get enough of Xi Jinping and his totalitarian communist regime. He married his wife on June 4th the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, and then spent his honeymoon in China! Finally, Tim has refused to criticize the University of Minnesota’s Hormel Institute’s close connections to China’s Wuhan institute. Republicans have subpoenaed DHS for info on Tim Walz's ties to China

Expand full comment
Amy Kennedy's avatar

The elites of course!

Expand full comment
MH's avatar
Oct 7Edited

Exactly my first thought! CNN dude should have immediately followed up with that very same question. She would have fallen all over herself trying to answer that one.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Seeing Liz Cheney and Kamala pictured together in John Nichols' recent article in The Nation made my skin crawl as well. Uniparty Bedfellows.

Expand full comment
PamelaDrew's avatar

At first glance "Liz Cheney & Kamala pictured" was above "made my skin crawl " and I thought Jack Nicholson in Misery which also fits both these wenches!

Expand full comment
bestuvall's avatar

nope that was James Caan

Expand full comment
Curling Iron's avatar

Well…what won’t make your skin crawl is Thief starring Mr Caan in Michael Mann’s first feature.

Expand full comment
Nowhere Man's avatar

Not of the skin-crawling genre, but great film nonetheless.

Expand full comment
Nowhere Man's avatar

Please tell me John Nichols didn't write approvingly of it... he was one of my favorite journos during the Bush years.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

"...made my skin crawl..." as it should. That's the future - for real!

Expand full comment
Kurl Malone's avatar

Aren't there already laws to prosecute cp, terrorism, etc on the books?

Maybe Hillary and the rest of the people's temple should concentrate on using the tools already available to make the prosecutions they claim they desire?

Maybe it's because I'm rereading 1984 that it's so clearly a desire to control the human mind that guides the darkest corners of humanity (Hillary etc...)

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

You're being rational. This is not about reason or the things handled by reason, but the primordial desire to rule, use, and extinguish.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

Kill or be killed.

Expand full comment
@CLJ3's avatar

If recollection serves there are immigration laws on the books too.......

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

Laws are just cudgels to whack the dissenters ("deployable") upside the head.

Expand full comment
@CLJ3's avatar

Did you mean 'deplorable'. Deployable does work tho for the perpetual war machine....

Expand full comment
Timothy G McKenna's avatar

Well, they count on the deplorables (or people’s, as the Romans called them…) to become their deployables

Expand full comment
Curling Iron's avatar

You don’t need laws for that. The security state has no problem bashing heads, jailing and assassinating the ne’er do wells.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

But they sometimes like a patina of legality to fool the naive.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Now that's crazy talk ...

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

There have been laws against murder, assault, armed robbery, etc. for ages - that hasn't stopped them from pushing for "gun control" or "knife control" in some of the countries that already took guns from law-abiding citizens.

Think of the children and be very afraid, then let Big Brother do whatever he wants. Easy.

Expand full comment
gortroe's avatar

You just reminded me to get a copy!

Expand full comment
Robert Stenson's avatar

§230 protection is based on the idea that SM platforms are not publishers but comparable to common carriers (e.g. telephone companies, etc.) because they just distribute other people's content whereas a publisher produces the content or at least exerts editorial control over content. Whether SM platforms should receive §230 protection is a valid question for debate, especially in light of how their algorithms promote or throttle users' content and not always based on the user's preferences but instead on the platform's preferences, which is a form of editorial control over content. However, Hillary being Hillary, she does not get the irony of her statement that the government should threaten to take away §230 protection unless the SM platforms exercising more editorial control in the way that the government, or in her case, the designated elite, shall decide. As Hillary ages and becomes more distant from the mechanisms of power with which she is obsessed, she is going full Keith Olberman, which is a truly disturbing thing to watch. Please pray for her. God knows she needs it.

Expand full comment
Bonnie Blodgett's avatar

"full Keith Olberman". . . very good.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

... not yet censor ...

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

The phone company does not (yet) vendor phone calls and cancel users ... except for non-payment.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Not so long ago Hillary was going the religious route, becoming a Pastor or Televangelist.

However her mentor Pastor was shown to be a plagiarist, which killed that avenue of Power.

Of course Plagiarism is standard in politics, look at Joe Biden, a proud life-long plagiarist.

Expand full comment
Curling Iron's avatar

I remember Keith Olberman from ESPN. Did I hallucinate that?

Expand full comment
Robert Stenson's avatar

You did not. It was before he became unhinged and started broadcasting from a white van in which he lives down by the river.

Expand full comment
WEJ's avatar

Yes, if SM platforms should receive §230 protection is a valid question. If CNN, wants to constructively cover the topic, they might want to start with someone with thoughtful ideas like Tristan Harris, not a politician still trying to vindicate the cause of her lost election.

Expand full comment
gortroe's avatar

When will telephone calls be on the list?

Oh, if you see Hilary, tell her about the hurricane in Ashville. She can then tell Goerge Clooney, Oprah, Bill Gates and her other friends. I know they will all want to be part of the solution, to restore Joy to North Carolina.

Expand full comment
Judith Cohen's avatar

That is good! My thoughts exactly

Expand full comment
Spiderbaby's avatar

I live in PA & Dave McCormick is a PA candidate for the Senate. So, while I was sitting at work this weekend I once again was inundated with the same 5 or 6 political ads playing over & over & over...

The anti-McCormick ad had one line of attack: "Dave McCormick profited on outsourcing jobs. Dave only cares about Dave."

Which is really weird since I seem to remember Bill "I likes 'em young" Clinton & his new, freshly reborn into corporate cash, Democratic Party passing NAFTA, a GHW Bush era Republican plan that the Dems initially derailed. Derailed until their wallets got thicker.

So let's be realistic here. The Dem royalty quite obviously doesn't give a shit about what their loyal moo cow voters think. In fact, it doesn't appear that the DNC thinks their voters actually think anything at all.

I think they're right.

Man that's a lot of thinking.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that Hillary could go on MSNBC and sacrifice a child while reciting an old Ed Wood porn novel & then end it with a picture of Trump in a diaper & in handcuffs & her audience would erupt in cheers & whistles.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

One of the few interventions that significantly increase life span (well documented in rodents at least) is parabiosis, prolonging the life of older by giving/ exchanging young blood (with rodents hooked together by tubing to minimize handling and dosing.)

There were lots of rumors about Hillary and Peter Thiel (satirized in "Silicon Valley") getting transfusions from Haitian babies and college age males respectively. When Hillary passed out and was dumped like a potato sack in her handlers' van (it seemed they had seen her like this before?) the rumors revived. Baby blood no doubt would be more effective, but a baby would need be drained to supply enough to be effective (or smaller amounts pooled from lots of babies).

I'm sure Pfizer and Moderna are hard at work on this.

Expand full comment
Spiderbaby's avatar

Is that your calmly collected way of telling me the bitch is going to live forever?

Expand full comment
Butt Actually's avatar

Her logic rings true for me. For instance, since the telephone can be used to plan a murder for hire shouldn’t the government be given “total control” over all telephone conversations in order to stop said murders?

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

Ban everything that "MIGHT cause harm". That's pretty much EVERYTHING!!!

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

No more cars! No more banana peels!

Expand full comment
Anon's avatar

Like schools, libraries, bars, churches, gyms and restaurants - oh no wait they already did that .

Expand full comment
Nowhere Man's avatar

Just not military weapons.

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

You may want to revisit the Snowden revelations

Expand full comment
Mark Minor's avatar

We need a "sarcasm font" like some sports sites have.

Expand full comment
Butt Actually's avatar

Oh I’m quite certain the allowed sarcasm font will be part of the “total control”.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

Since it is common knowledge that knowing the Clintons can lead to "suicide" by multiple gunshots to the head, by fatal anaphylactic shock brought on by drinking distilled water, falling out of a first floor window, etc., shouldn't the Clintons be banned?

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Just destroy the hard drive.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

Okay Hillary, can we also control the people who are stoking fears that TRUMP will weaponize the federal agencies against his political opponents? Last I checked, Bannon, Stone, Navarro, Giuliani and of course Trump himself, have all been targeted by these agencies because of their politics.

Expand full comment
MH's avatar

Well, easy for Trump to do since he'll rule as a "dictator" and will be assisted by his "Russian Asset" Tulsi Gabbard

Expand full comment
Luna Maximus's avatar

Somewhere there must be a worse person than she, but thankfully, I've yet to stumble onto them. Rush Limbaugh always said they will tell you exactly what they are thinking. Aside from the fact that it's become brutally serious, can you imagine the fun he'd be having with this crowd? Pomegranate brain Kamala, drooling Joe. It's deadly serious, but an occasional laugh still does the body good.

Expand full comment
Barbara's avatar

When I see Hillary's mug I think of The Picture of Dorian Gray - it is getting more and more degraded with her own vitriol for us deplorables.

Walter - Senator Rick Scott (re Florida's most corrupt biz) was the CEO of Columbia/HCA and paid the largest Medicare fine for fraud until recently. Humana's owners, the Recarey brothers - one left the company and the other fled to South America and in the late 1980s, the FBI was still trying to figure out how money from Humana was stolen from the company and sent to him. Banana Republic medicine. Hillary on healthcare - total trainwreck.

Expand full comment
Mark, of Bethlehem's avatar

Sometimes I wonder if the powers that be trot out Hillary like a canary in a coal mine to say such unAmerican things so they can gauge the reaction, knowing she and old man Kerry are expendable.

I cannot understand how the first amendment became another partisan issue. Wtf is wrong with us? It's the most impressive thing in the history of governance and nation-building, and the media is busy wondering if the real problem is the first amendment. No, morons, it's the solution.

Fuckheads.

Expand full comment
SeminaFilligree's avatar

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻well put!

Expand full comment
Biff's avatar

Watch or read about today’s exchange between KJP and Peter Doocy. KJP, like all of them (meaning, all of the Hillary’s, the John Kerry’s etc.), have been coached to bring out the dis and misinformation tactic when challenged or questioned on anything they do not want to answer. "You can't call a question you don't like misinformation," Doocy said. God love him. I cannot see how this strategy can work for them on the broader scale they are attempting. Granted it has worked for them extremely well for at least three years now, but thanks to the work of journalists like Matt, it’s becoming more apparent to more Americans that they cannot continue to dismiss every challenge to their actions as dis or misinformation. They’ll continue to try, but I really believe it’s already beginning to backfire on them.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

It worked really well calling Hunter's hard drives "Russian Disinformation" (2020 Election interference?) and with Russiagate generally, limiting Trump's "essential threat".

And of course "disinformation" probably tripled the Covid death rate in the US, allowing no dissent from better credentialed scientists and physicians (maybe that was the goal? Elderly are "Useless Eaters" to DC, ironically including Joe Biden who constantly tried to do away with Social Security as senator.)

Expand full comment
Blaine's avatar

It was amazing how she took two totally unrelated things, phone access for children and censorship of social media, and tied them together like it was completely logical when it was not. The audacity

Expand full comment
Brittany's avatar

Regarding personal ability to sift through bullshit: I learned from the pandemic and the years since. What was sold as facts, not sold but pushed like oxycodone in eastern Kentucky, were not facts at all. The truth has since come out with no acknowledgement by the liars, they just keep lying. The internet continues to automatically push the lies. I’m not even sure how I obtain a written version of a fact anymore. However, I don’t need it. I know when something doesn’t sound correct, I don’t have to buy what someone is selling as fact. I just wait to make a purchase of truth when it comes along. In other words, trust yourself and your instincts. They exist for a reason. Discernment, thought, and judgment is in fact what this whole scheme is trying to rid from the human.

Expand full comment
SeminaFilligree's avatar

100%!

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

Did the KGB or the Stasi admonish their respective citizens to Think of the Children! while ordering people to rat out their neighbors, friends and spouses, so that the traitors could be put against a wall and shot? Or is that a uniquely American dystopian device?

Expand full comment
JGP's avatar

Yes and no.

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

She’s addicted to those face fillers, she looks as puffy as John Kerry at this point.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Talk about fillers - Joy Behar is 82 today. How plastic can someone be - inside and out.

Expand full comment
Butt Actually's avatar

She’s 182 in yenta years.

Expand full comment
Mike Stone's avatar

She should stay out of the ocean. Supposedly there's already too much plastic floating around.

Expand full comment