According to Microsoft Word, Trump’s acceptance speech was delivered at the level of comprehension of a high-school freshling.
I guarantee you, the response of 90% of Democrats will be, “Well, see, this proves Hillary isn’t a Socialist, and Wall Street trusts her to build the economy.”
Milo runs down a long list of ‘Hate Crimes’ that turned out to be fakes generated by leftists hoping to gain celebrity, money, or just advance a narrative of hate that the real world obstinately fails to live up to.
Victimhood is profitable. On the internet, it can get you thousands of dollars in crowdfunding donations. In the media, it can win you national prominence and a cooing audience of credulous sycophants. On campus, it can get you attention and plaudits from fellow grievance-mongers.
It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the deaths of those the police seek to arrest: it’s every law. “Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right,” wrote Carter.
It isn’t just libertarians who warn about overcriminalization. The conservative Heritage Foundation published a report last year by former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey and Paul Larkin Jr. warning that “the sheer number of federal laws that impose criminal penalties has grown to an unmanageable point.”
If we want to reduce violent confrontations between citizens and police, we should reduce the involuntary interactions that cause them. Any offense that does not directly harm the life, physical health, or property of others should not be regarded as such. The civil code should instead be used to address those grievances.
The rule for this should be simple: If there’s no victim, there’s no crime. This should be the foundation of criminal law. And, yeah, getting your feelings hurt by someone does not make you a victim of anything other than your personal issues.
I actually believe that in the end by repealing the Hyde Amendment we will actually save this country money, because rather than having all kinds of unwanted pregnancies, there will be able to be the ability for women to have greater choice over their bodies no matter what their income level is. That’s the importance of repealing the Hyde Amendment
Obama at the DNC: “Everything is awesome and it’s all thanks to me!” (119x)
American public: 73% think things suck and are going to suck more in the future.
Has anyone noticed that the Democrat Party is now completely run by and for elderly left-wing feminists? Hillary of course, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Cecile Richards, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) Nita Loewy (D-NY) and the whole “Progressive Caucus” in the House. The party’s priorities… abortion, false narratives about women earning less than men, gun control, and expansion of the bureaucracy so other feminists can get Government-funded office jobs … reflect the prerogatives of women who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s and whose views are stuck in that era.
And as the Democrat Party has become the party of elderly left-wing feminists, their bitter contempt for whites males … and their fossilized ‘Mad Men’ Era view of same… has become ever more evident. To quote Nancy Pelosi:
“I think that, so many times, white — non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.”
The poor old biddy thinks “God, guns, and gays” is still clever. Maybe it was back in the 70’s. And she thinks those poor stupid males who won’t vote for a party that holds their values in utter contempt, and wants to redistribute their wages to feminist crones, are “voting against their own economic interests.” That’s daft.
And isn’t it peculiar that in a party so fanatically pro-abortion that they actually oppose health and safety standards for place where abortions are performed, that they won’t actually say the word ‘abortion.’ It’s always ‘right to choose,’ ‘reproductive rights,’ or even ‘family planning?’ If abortion is such a great and important thing, why not just come out and say the word?
There are emails that describe a donor angling for seats next to Obama at a roundtable discussion and one about assigning seats for donors at a White House state dinner. In one, a major contributor from Maryland who had cancer was bumped from a seat next to the president because another, more prolific giver was attending the same event.
Proof that Democrats are exactly the greedy a-holes we always suspected they were.
There aren’t enough treacly show tunes in the world to cover this up.
Here’s a more appropriate show tune for our Democrat friends.
Today at a press conference, a
Democrat Media Operative reporter was pestering Donald Trump that he should feel bad about joking that the Russians should release the rest of Hillary’s emails. He shut her up by saying, “Be quiet. I know you want to save her.”
He’s right you know. The news media is part of the left, and they always have been.
You can start the timeline as far back as the World War II era. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt told the country that if Republicans were returned to power, “even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.” The press nodded along.
In 1964, CBS News’s Daniel Schorr claimed that Barry Goldwater’s planned post-convention vacation in Europe was really an effort to coordinate with “right-wing Germans” in “Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.”
I don’t know, he’s probably funnier.
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.