Chaser: This ad from the Hillary Camp.
The rumor is that George HW “Read My Lips” Bush has been telling people he’s voting for Norwegian Blue. Apparently, the guy who repealed Reagan’s tax cuts and appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court, and whose son not only botched an unpopular (but eminently winnable) war, but also massively expanded domestic spending and entitlements, doubled the national debt, and left the border wide open while 20 million illegals entered the country… thinks that Donald Trump will be the death of the Republican Party.
But the “Oh, Good Lord, You Have Got to Be Kidding Me, Bring on SMOD, Our Culture Is Too Weak to Survive” story is this: The University of Houston is Handing Out “Emotional First Aid Kits” to college children who suffer from microagressions.
“The stress of school gets to them. Like a bad grade, a missed class, being late, a microaggression, uhh whatever,” (University of Houston psychology department advisor Bobbie Sue) Schindler said to O’Keefe about the emotional distress University of Houston students face.
This emotional first aid kit ended up containing a baby blanket, chocolates, a plush kitten, a bag containing the smell of lavender, ear plugs, a genderless pastel teddy bear, hand written notes, and a pacifier. Schindler did think students would take the pacifier the wrong way and instead said they could suggest students suck on their thumb instead.
It’s a rumor, it’s sourced from the Huffington Post (Democrat Propaganda Site) who would definitely have an incentive to start a rumor that would weaken Trump’s support among conservatives.
OTOH, the notion that Trump would nominate to the Supreme Court someone who used lawfare to shutdown a media organization (Gawker) that published unflattering information about him is, at least, plausible.
Trump’s campaign and the gay activist billionaire deny it.
Spreading fast on social media this Thursday morning is a story originally posted at the Huffington Post, which reports that Donald Trump is considering PayPal founder, gay marriage supporter, and culture war snob Peter Thiel for the Supreme Court. If appointed, Thiel would be the first openly gay Supreme Court Justice, a landmark I personally think Trump would find irresistible.
In other election news, Hillary is still pining for the fjords, and Gary Johnson is an idiot. The crook, the blowhard, the idiot, and the nutjob. Our electoral choices this year are like the cast of a Coen Brothers movie.
The contortion of rage in the angry feminist’s mug is a thing of beauty.
Donald Trump has really handled the “Basket of Deplorables” attack beautifully. The Democrat-Media Collaboration on this line of attack was supposed to work like this:
1. Hillary denounces Trump supporters as “a basket of deplorables.”
2. Media runs with the phrase and challenges Republicans to denounce their deplorable followers.
3. Republicans obediently comply, thereby conceding the point and giving power to it, while also alienating their supporters who resent being cast as deplorables.
This 1-2-3 was exactly how the Democrat-Media Complex (DMC) succeeded in turning Mitt Romney’s (truthful) “47% remark” into a successful attack, and how the DMC turned the McCain campaign against its own VP candidate.
But Trump successfully short-circuited the attack by refusing to comply with Step 3, and instead turning it around into an attack on Hillary; a very successful parry it is difficult to imagine a standard-issue Republican pulling off.
No wonder the DMC is eager to change the subject and talk about how courageous Norwegian Blue is for “powering through” her pneumonia, which is the only medical condition she suffers from, pinky swear. Other than that one little thing, she’s ready to run a triathlon, so they assure us.
In other news of this wretched excuse for an election, the *other* New York Big Government Liberal running for president seems to have, um, totally lied to the FBI and everyone else about her illegal use of an email server, and also claimed a convenient head injury made her forget what “Classified” Meant. And yet, all the left wing gays will still vote for her.
One other thing, you know that liberal Republican who’s running for president on the Libertarian ticket? Yeah, he actually thinks Barack Obama has been *too tough* on enforcing Immigration Laws and he turns into a really pissy little bitch when you use the phrase “illegal immigrant” around him. (more…)
Oh, hell no. In fact, there’s a lot of people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Stupid voters produce stupid politicians. Like the one who said Guam was going to tip over from the weight of military equipment on the island. Or the glittering jewel of stupidity who describes herself as a “freed slave,” thinks there are still two Vietnams, and that Neil Armstrong landed on Mars. These people would not be in positions of power if there were minimum standards of civics for voting eligibility. Before you can vote, you should be required to pass the same test legal immigrants must pass for citizenship, at a minimum.
I was thinking about that when I read this: (Snipped)
Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to “get out and vote.” They tell us it’s our “most important civic duty,” and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the “masses” to vote, if they believed the “masses” would elect Donald Trump?
Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our “civic duty” to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but lets face it – the bar is not set very high. If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.
The undeniable reality is this: our right to vote does not require any understanding of current events, or any awareness of how our government works.
So no, Jeremy – I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn’t do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn’t need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process. So if you really want me to say something political, how about this – read more.
Remember – there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor – ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.
If there were standards, we might get politicians who were elected on the basis of intelligence and policy; and not because millions of idiots were convinced that Mitt Romney was going to outlaw tampons.
Trump focusing on Democrats’ disservice to the Black Community is a smart move. Even if it doesn’t win over any black votes, it forces the MFM to talk about it, it puts Democrats on the defensive, it helps defuse the ‘racist’ tag, and it gives ‘moderate’ white voters something they can agree with Trump on without looking racist.
“If Democrats are so bad for blacks,” whine the spologists, “then why do they get 90% of the black vote.” When you give populations just enough to get by, and brainwash them to believe that someone else is going to take what little they have away from them… a message pounded in daily by the media, by ‘community activists,’ and by those selected politicians and bureaucrats given positions by the party…also the black Democrat Media Operatives linked above … it’s a pretty effective means of control. Especially when Republicans are too cowed and too timid to offer an alternative.
Not to mention, Democrat-voting among minorities is also enforced by groups like #BlackLivesMatter advancing a phony narrative that racist police are constantly shooting innocent black teenagers who weren’t doin’ nuffin’ and are lavishly funded by Democrat-front groups and Black Churches, which are largely exempted from the enforcement of laws against churches engaging in politicking.
“What is it about Donald Trump’s policies that these twinks like so much?” (Lucian) Wintrich was asked.
“First of all, he’s a wonderful, strong daddy figure and every twink loves that,” he answered.
Wintrich added twinks are attracted to Trump’s policies on immigration, taxes and government spending.
A few weeks old, but I have been debating commenting on it and finally decided to comment on it. It was as part of a response to a question about religious liberty.
I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn’t somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead.
So, what he is saying is… and he is running as a “libertarian,” mind you… is that if the Government doesn’t force people to bake cakes for gay weddings even if they have religious objections to it, then it’s going to be okay to kill people of other religions in the street.
That is just plain shabby reasoning. Reasonably, there is no compelling reason for the Government to force anyone to bake a cake for someone else’s wedding. No harm results from such a refusal. The gay in question can simply seek out a baker willing to supply the cake. At very worst, they have to do without a cake. That comes nowhere near rising to the level of murder; where there is a compelling state interest to prevent harm.
Can I, in good conscious, vote for someone who really thinks it’s the Government’s business to force people to be nice to each other? I might as well vote for Hillary.
I also wasn’t crazy about his support for open borders. (“My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.”) But between that, his support for wedding cake fascism (and his poor intellectual argument for same), his support for left-leaning Supreme Court justices, and his naivete about the threat of Militant Mohammedanism, I just can’t.
Not even if the alternatives are corrupt lying harridan and Trumpster fire.
I would actually have Gary Johnson say something to the effect of, “Hey, Bernie Bros, I’m anti-war, pro-Islamic immigration, and pro-wedding cake fascism. What more could you ask for?” The Libertarian-Pot thing is kind of hackneyed.
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)
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.
Anti-trump protesters in San Jose, California followed his advice, assaulting attendees at a Trump rally (physically, as in punches thrown), throwing bottles, eggs, and tomatoes at them, also smashing cars in a nearby parking garage. It’s OK, though, because according to another
journalist Democrat Media Operative, Trump supporters deserve to be violently assaulted.
Trump’s opponents on the left do a much better job making him appear sympathetic than his supporters do. Those San Jose rioters and lefty journos did more PR good for Trump than a whole week of Sean Hannity’s and FoxNews’s cheerleading.
Funny thing though, a few weeks back, the same Emmett Resin who is now calling for mob violence was preening about how opposed he was to politically violence of all kinds.
Trump may be kind of thuggish, but he’ll leave me alone. Hillary’s going to come looking for me, and she’s foolish and clueless enough to push and push until we normals get tired of it and start to push back. I, for one, prefer my country not to be sucked into a second civil war because some former president’s angry wife is playing out a freakish psychodrama revenge fantasy against all the guys who have rejected her, from her father to Bill to those of us male-identifying men who laugh at her cankles.
This is (apparently and as far as I know) a real, genuine Hillary campaign pitch; not a parody of what a desperately corrupt and out of touch elderly politician long-past-her-sell-by date would do to reach out to what her advisors tell her is a key voting demographic.
Is it just me, or is there a weird disconnect between the hipster neckbeard and hipster top-mullet? Like they were photoshopped from two different people. And shouldn’t he have a man-bun?
Sanders was introduced by a blind Filipino delegate and a gay actress who spoke passionately in favor of transgender rights and compared Sanders to a unicorn, because “he seems too good to be true.” Sanders, leaning on his lectern with both hands, recounted a moving encounter with a barista whose eyes filled with tears of gratitude for Sanders’s campaign. A man waved a homemade Sanders muppet in the air.
Yeah, I’m overusing the word dysphoria a lot. It means hating life. It’s very useful in describing the left.
Updated Update: Hillary’s campaign is disavowing the ad. So, if you trust Hillary to own up to an embarrassing mistake, feel free to believe her denial.
Papa Giorgio asks:
V… I have a question for you. I am not a fan of Trump, to say the least. And for the first time since voting Bush Sr. (my first vote) have voted GOP. This will most likely be the first year I do not. And even started a site to work against Trump, “The Constitutional Federalists of America,” buying many URL variation of it. Anyhew… I started to think and came up with three points that would make me consider my vote drifting back towards the GOP, they are these three:
✦ He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
✦ He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
✦ He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.
It sucks that we have to be soo worried about the Court… these Justices shouldn’t have the power to interpret the Constitution… the Constitution should reign them in. But this is the sad reality we face.
In my most recent upload to my YouTube channel Levin talks to Carrie Severino about what apparently seems to be one of my criteria met.
THE QUESTION IS THIS: If Trump meets the other two, would you consider voting for him? … if not, why not?
And this is my answer:
I can’t imagine Trump limiting himself to one-term, but that really wouldn’t make any difference to me.
I don’t think Trump is going to pick a conservative for the vice president spot, I think he is going to pick John Kasich — a scheming, nasty little weasel of a man with crossover appeal to moderates (who also tend to be weasels). The vice president pick is irrelevant. He may as well pick John Oates, or that other fella from ‘The Pet Shop Boys’ for all the influence his VP will have.
If the SCOTUS appointments are reason enough for you to hold your nose and vote for Trump, that’s a perfectly valid rationale and I won’t argue with it. It’s not persuasive to me because it just isn’t enough. We can probably survive with a few more liberals on the Supreme Court, I’m not so certain we can survive the type of sewer politics Donald Trump represents.
Which is pretty much the answer to “Why not?”
He’s like a Golden Retriever gazing at his master next to the servility; or like Rachel Maddow watching Ronda Rousey model lingerie.
Ilya Shapiro presents an interesting thesis: That Donald Trump’s Candidacy is a product of a plurality of Republican voters having become disillusioned with America’s Constitutional form of Government. That the utter failure of the Republican Party to stop any part of Barack Obama’s radical agenda has convinced them that the only way to counter the left is to elect an equally authoritarian “strong man” who will similarly ignore Constitutional Restraints and impose his will on their behalf.
- The Republican Congress has not only been utterly ineffectual in opposing Obama’s policies, but has consistently voted to fully fund them. The one time the Congress very briefly, very tentatively stood up to Obama (the so-called “Government Shutdown” of 2013 that didn’t actually shut down anything), they not only folded immediately, but abjectly apologized and promised that such insolence would never happen again and those responsible (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee) would be punished.
- The Supreme Court … led by a supposedly conservative George W. Bush appointee … saved Obamacare twice through Cirque du Soleil quality legal distortions, overturned Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement policies (because they displeased Obama), and created a brand new Constitutional Right to “dignity” in upholding gay marriage laws enacted in many cases against the wishes of the citizenry. Thus, the Roberts Court showed it cared not a whit for the Constitution, but would also… most of the time … roll over for President Obama.
- Apologists repeating over-and-over “There’s nothing we can do because we don’t have the Presidency,” is a de facto admission that Congress is irrelevant in the era of the Baracktatorship.
This is a very plausible thesis, and I say that from the perspective of having been at one time sympathetic to the idea of a Trump candidacy (before he got down in the gutter). He was not my first, second, third, fourth, or fifth choice. (FWIW: Paul, Walker, Cruz, Jindal, Perry) But I understood his appeal against a corrupt and ineffectual Republican Establishment, and before I came to the conclusion that his sudden conversion on issues like illegal immigration, trade, abortion, and gun control (the precise opposite of his previous views), was insincere opportunism, I could entertain the idea of a Trump candidacy. It was the sleazy campaign and the mounting evidence of his insincerity that pushed me to #NeverTrump.
But can I understand why someone would turn to Trump after every other instrument of the party had betrayed them? Totally.