Anyone else watch that weird Alicia Keyes song that ended with the video montage of sepia-toned presidential portraits that were then shattered, revealing the giant Hillary sitting there weirdly grinning at the crowd?
So, it turns out that the DNC Primaries were rigged for Hillary the whole time, and the email hack has exposed the whole thing. And even when Bernie Sanders begs his supporters to fall in line, they boo him off the stage. Also, the Democrats are confiscating pro-Bernie paraphernalia from convention attendees.
I haven’t watched any of it, but I imagine it’s something like this:
Ain’t it funny that the “Anti-Wall Street” party is meeting in an arena named after a bank that got a $25 Billion bailout from TARP?
Ain’t it funny that the party that proclaims that walls and Voter IDs are “racist” is meeting in a place secured by four miles of walls to keep out people who don’t have IDs.
No wonder the Democrat shills have been so absent from the comments of late. It would be embarrassing to defend this monstrosity. How often can they say, “We don’t care how corrupt or malicious the Democrat Party is, we will support them forever because of gay marriage” before it gets tedious even to themselves.
The Star Trek relaunch will feature a very ugly, 70′s throwback starship and lots of lefty social propaganda. Says CBS: “The drama, set to bow in 2017, will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.”
The new series might be okay, even pretty good, and I realize Star Trek has always been “progressive,” but there is a definite risk — given the left’s inability to handle subtlety and nuance in conveying their agenda — that the new Trek will be a constant hammering of transgender bathrooms, NausicanLivesMatter, global warming, or whatever other lefty crap is on the agenda. Remember the horrible Next Generation “Global Warming” episode that ended with Star Fleet limiting ships to warp 5 to save the environment? I expect that will look subtle in comparison to some of the new episodes. Maybe it won’t be so bad. Maybe it will.
Maybe they’ll go to the increasingly tedious “Girl Power” trope where 90 lbs waifs are routinely kicking the asses of 200 lbs musclemen… because women could totally do that if it weren’t for the Patriarchy.
Between this and Patton Oswalt and the Daily Show Chief Propagandist helming the new MSJW3K reboot, I feel like everything I once loved is turning into left-wing propaganda.
Whatever definition the DNC used to define ‘good gay,’ most of us probably do not qualify.
Also, from the Finance Chair of the DNC. “I love you too. No homo.”
BTW: Have you noted the not-so-subtle shift in media coverage from “What’s in the leaked emails” (Bad for Democrats) to “Who hacked the emails?” (Not as bad for Democrats)?
Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about. From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.
Trump was definitely not my first choice: I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz. As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.
My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election. While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting. While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality. So what to do? One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way. Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.
Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes. During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power. I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.
But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues? One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year. My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.
Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma. Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance. Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.
In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles. I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.
But let’s examine the situation. We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative. We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power. Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.” That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates. She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”
During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin. When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president. And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”
So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:
The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.
Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.
Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.
And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.
You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.
Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.
Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?
I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not. As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.
And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons. As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.” Barnes notes:
Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.
And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal. The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.
The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.
For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.” Hillary Clinton must not become president. If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.
So then, why Donald Trump? Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.
I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.
Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative. How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?
For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system. Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same: Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.
My personal favorite is when Democrats refer to Hispanics as “taco bowls.” But the one suggesting they go after Bernie Sanders religion is a good one, too. Also the one where a Democrat Media Operative working for Politico lets the Democrats vet his story before publishing. What’s your favorite leaked email?
Update: Democrat Party Chair resigns amid email scandal. And she is immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign.
And this is why I call them the MFM.
Addendum. As has been noted, Democrat speeches that characterize America as a racist society, that declare that racist cops are shooting innocent black schoolboys for no reason other than racism, that there is a ‘War on Women,’ or a ‘War on LGBT,’ or a ‘War on immgirants’ are never characterized by the media as “dark.”
The Democrats deploy this rhetoric as an open-faced pitch to low-information voters. Trump is doing the same.
It occurred to me (and it didn’t take much time googling to convince myself) that the thought had come up in 2000.
Dare I dream?
(Naturally, yes, this is a quick flippant thought after an afternoon at the marina having a few rum drinks… But how, otherwise, could things be worse, amirite?)
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
So here we are.
This is the choice we’re given this year:
An egomaniacal New York Democrat who represents the terrible nexus between powerful moneyed interests and overbearing governmental influence in our lives.
A candidate whose entire family’s wealth in fact is a direct result of underhanded, criminal at times, manipulation of power that puts the ‘little guy’ under the thumb of those in undeserved positions of power and authority.
A candidate with actual legal travails in fact hanging like the Sword of Damocles as we move into the general election season.
A staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, universal healthcare, and the expansion of governmental power, with a blindly protectionist view of free trade, who (although a supporter of it at the time) contends that George W Bush lied us into war in Iraq.
A candidate who cozies up to (and profits from relationships with) foreign strongmen.
A candidate who expresses an excitement and yearning desire to gut the First Amendment, primarily with the goal of targeting political enemies.
A candidate who colluded with party leaders to squelch any expression of inner-party dissent and explicitly and in the most personal and insulting ways conceivable to deny fellow-party adversaries any legitimacy even if it meant dragging them through the mud.
A candidate who chooses to offset such obvious personal (and universally accepted) flaws with a boring and milquetoast running mate with the hopes the general electorate will not take notice of such clear unfitness for the job.
A crooked, deceitful, duplicitous lout with an unquenchable desire for power and a seemingly physical inability to tell the truth.
The most unliked major-party nominee for president in the history of the United States.
So what, then? Are we supposed to vote for his opponent instead?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
A gay man gave a speech at the Republican National Convention: The Gay Left Is Not Taking This Very Well.
The 2nd dumbest woman on Twitter is also not taking it well.
There would also be hissy fits if no gays spoke at the RNC.
Here is what happened. Massachusetts passed a law that made it illegal to sell guns with certain features. Manufacturers complied with the law by making guns without those features. The Massachusetts AG calls that “exploiting a loophole” and issued a decree that says the state can outlaw any type of gun that has any common feature with any gun on the ban list. Her decree is so broad, it acts as an effective gun ban, and leftists are cheering about it.
When a leftist says, “We respect the Second Amendment; we’re not going to outlaw your guns,” she’s lying. The ultimate goal has always been to outlaw the private ownership of firearms. Massachusetts and California are just leading the curve.
Update: Since Germany won this week’s Terror Attack Lottery, I thought it might be worth noting that all of the “Common Sense Gun Laws” Democrats favor are already on the books and rigorously enforced in Deutschland.
“The German system of gun control is among the most stringent in Europe. It restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.
It bans fully automatic weapons and severely restricts the acquisition of other types of weapons. COMPULSORY LIABILITY INSURANCE is REQUIRED for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms”
The Movement to Abolish Police Departments is moving into the mainstream of the left. Left-wing activists want police defunded to pay for more Free Sh-t.
IMHO, the cops should take them up on their offer; declare parts of major cities “Police-Free Zones” and focus their efforts on protecting people who want police protection while leaving the other areas under the control of “Community Systems of Justice” or whatever. They could even release all those “non-violent offenders” into the PFZ’s where they would assuredly be welcome.
“Our mandate, in this time, is to avenge the suffering of our ancestors.”
Apparently, this means voting for the party that fought for Jim Crow and slavery.
The Daily Show… that thing on Comedy Central where Low-Information Millennials used to get their news… tried to mock gay conservatives at Milo’s “Gays for Trump” Party. The Daily Show camera crew got really snippy when partygoers turned the tables on them.
“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.
“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.
“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”
For some reason, someone invited an airheaded Hollywood actress to an AIDS conference; which is a bit like inviting a cocker-spaniel to a Symposium on Particle Physics.
“HIV is not transmitted by sex,” Charlize Theron announced. “It is transmitted by sexism, racism.”
Theron continued by discussing how AIDS still plagues humanity because of a social divide between white and black people.
“We value white skin more than black skin,” she told the crowd, adding that the African-originated pandemic is predominantly the result of social discrimination in the West.
But, y’know, she got to wear a suit and have her hair styled like ‘serious business lady,’ which I am sure was fun for her.
On Twitter, if you fantasize about beating to death a grieving mother, that’s not a problem (provided the fantasist is a left-wing writer and the grieving mother is a Republican).
The interesting thing is no where does Twitter cite anything Milo Y. actually said, but they are banning him because the feminist actress complained that other people inspired by Milo were sending her mean tweets and giving her sadfeels.
It’s okay, it was “satire.” He said so in his fauxpology.
The media’s day-long obsession with Trump Trophy Wife III — Melanoma, or whatever her name is — giving a speech with a few lines that were similar to the speech Obama’s beard gave at her convention is really a new low. We are a very stupid country. Sometimes, I think we deserve Hillary.
Update: Speaking of fauxpologies. I am pretty sure this one is also the product of a speechwriter.
Update: After the jump, the left lets the misogyny fly
Update: The always classy Bill Maher chimes in, too.
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 15, 2016
Isn’t this wonderful news? It means the 49 people he murdered weren’t victims of a hate crime.
“While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted pulse because it was a gay club,” a U.S. law enforcement official told The Post.
According to the report, federal investigators have combed through Mateen’s computer and other electronic footprints in an effort to determine what motivated the attack. Thus far, the review has revealed nothing to support assertions that the attack was motivated by homophobia or that Mateen was gay.
This means we can downgrade this attack from a horrible hate crime to a mere mass-murder.
I mean, yeah, Omar Mateen may have hated the people he murdered for being part of Western Civilization, but he didn’t hate them for being gay.
We’ll save the “Hate Crime” label for the real monsters: People who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings.
Two weeks ago, I said:
If BLM and its core principles really are peaceful, two things are going to happen.
1. BLM is going to crack down hard on elements within its groups that advocate violence.
2. BLM’s rhetoric is going to change from confrontational to cooperative
I will wait and see if these things happen.
At a recent pointless #BlackLivesMatter (I think it might have been during the #DayofRage) protest… the advocacy of violence, the violent rhetoric, and the failure to denounce either… goes on.
— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) July 17, 2016
And meanwhile, an editor at the Democrat Left “Think Progress” website says that killing police is “justice.” (But he’ll probably claim it was ‘just a joke’ or that he actually was making a brilliant and subtle point that only *sounded* like he approved of police murder when he didn’t mean that at all.)
Chicago, Barack Obama’s nominal home base, the city’s whose political culture shaped his ideological and governing philosophy has fully implemented the Democrat agenda of high taxes, gun control, heavily regulated businesses, generous welfare programs, sanctuary for illegal immigrants, lavishly funded public teachers… the whole Pinata of benefits from the party’s whose mission is to use Government to insulate people from the consequences of bad decisions. And Chicago is following in the footsteps of other one-party, Democrat-run cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, et c…
Social breakdown lies behind Chicago’s historically high levels of violence. Fatherlessness in the city’s black community is at a cataclysmic level—close to 80 percent of children are born to single mothers in high-crime areas. Illegitimacy is catching up fast among Hispanics, as well. Gangs have stepped in where fathers are absent. A 2012 gang audit documented 59 active street gangs with 625 factions, some controlling a single block. Schools in gang territories go on high alert at dismissal time to fend off violence. Endemic crime has prevented the commercial development and gentrification that are revitalizing so many parts of Chicago closer to downtown; block after block on the South Side features a wan liquor store or check-cashing outlet, surrounded by empty lots and the occasional skeleton of a once-magnificent beaux-arts apartment complex or bank. Nonfunctioning streetlights, their fuse boxes vandalized, signal the reign of a local gang faction.
One must ask why these cities continue to vote in Democrat governments even though the result of one-part rule is, invariably, a decline in livability and quality of life. Well, there is a sizable bloc of stupid voters in every major urban area in the USA. These people are poorly educated (thank you, Democrat-run schools) and heavily dependent on welfare (thank you, LBJ’s Great Society). This makes them susceptible to the constant Democrat propaganda pounded into them day after day by Democrat-affiliated community activists and the Democrat-run media complex. “Republicans hate you. It’s Republicans’ fault your life sucks. Republicans want to take away what little we give you.” They even actively encourage radical groups like #BlackLivesMatter whose actions make life worse for the stupid voting bloc.
Republicans do not even try to contend for the cities any more. A message of “You’ve been voting Democrat for generations and things have only gotten worse, do the math” might resonate with the right messenger and the right medium. On those rare occasions when a larger city elects a Republican mayor, he is often too timid to attempt any real reforms. When Republicans do make successful reforms, they sometimes find they have rocked the boat too much and are unwelcome to for further political advancement, which is what happened to Jersey City Republican mayor Brent Schundler and NYC mayor Rudy Gioliani.
Republicans are also, by and large the party of the middle class, which is a voting populace increasingly driven out by the Democrat-run political machines, by policies of continuous tax increases that go primarily to city bureaucrats and connected cronies while the quality of services valued by the middle class… schools, police, sanitation… diminish. The upper class live in gated communities, towers with private security, and can afford public schools. With a small, connected elite and a large underclass, American cities increasingly resemble third-world countries.
In this environment, it’s only natural for Republicans to look at the cities and say “Let them burn,” and for Democrats to say, “the fires keep us warm.”
Detroit isn’t an outlier; it’s the model.