Tag Archives: 2016 election

So long, farewell, da da da da da da-ahhh!

I saw a link to this over on Vox Day’s blog yesterday.

Executive summary: Matt Walsh has decided to leave the Republican Party due to Trump being the presumptive nominee.

My remarks:

The GOP was in dire need of a remaking.  This has happened to political parties before, and will happen again at points in the future.  It’s an inherent part of the American political process, a reflection of the facts that 1) the way votes are counted means, mathematically, that the most stable arrangement is a two-party polarity, and 2) the needs and concerns of the People change over time, in reflection of changing conditions in the world.  Those two facts together result in a need for either one, or preferably both, of the dominant political parties to periodically remake themselves in order to accommodate the new reality. What has happened is the formation of a new political coalition, a process which, in America, happens before the election rather than after (as in multi-party democracies).  This year the process happened to be particularly contentious, but it’s nothing more than the system working the way it is supposed to work, including anyone with influence trying to game the system, as they always do. The unusual thing this time is that the game-players didn’t come out on top the way they normally do.  This is a huge victory for ordinary people.

Furthermore, the fact that the Republican party reached this point sooner than the Democrats, who are also very obviously in need of a reality check, is a good thing, as it makes them more relevant to current conditions.  I expect the Democrats will undergo a similar process in four to eight years, but for now, regardless of who they can come up with as their nominee—Clinton, Sanders, or some alternative like Biden—it’s the GOP/Trump coalition which is right now more firmly grounded in reality. Trump and his supporters made that happen. The Democrats are still traipsing around in ideological la-la land, making themselves look more and more stupid with each passing day.  How is this not the best possible outcome for anyone other than leftist nutjobs, illegal aliens, and multinational megacorps hell-bent on perverting the political process to their own ends?

So, with due respect to Mr. Walsh, “So long, farewell, etc. etc.

Super Tuesday

Big day in the Republican presidential primary races!  Will Trump pull ahead to a decisive lead today?  Will the absolutely insane anti-Trump media blitz of the past few days have an impact, perhaps enough to lose him a state or two? Or will swing voters recognize it as exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to fling a truckload of shit in the hope that just a little bit of it will stick?

Perhaps the stickiest shit flung is in relation to the David Duke “endorsement.” Laughably, the whole thing turned out to be false, unless you want to really indulge in some hairsplitting: Duke himself stated clearly that he does not endorse Donald Trump, although he does plan on voting for him. That is an interesting distinction, because it’s possible the only reason Duke is making it is that he knows full well an outright endorsement would possibly damage Trump’s reputation. However, he could also be making it simply because a candidate with positions so congruent to his own as to actually merit his endorsement is not to be found in this race. That would make Trump, in his eyes, the most pragmatic choice of half a dozen less-than-adequate candidates. It is certainly not unusual for people to vote that way.  Myself, for instance: I voted for Romney in 2012, but would not consider that an endorsement.  I voted for him because I didn’t want Obama to win, that’s all.  I did, however, gladly support Ron Paul in the 2012 primary, and I’d agree that really does constitute an endorsement. See the difference?  In particular, when you compare Trump’s position on illegal immigrants to that of the other GOP candidates, do you see the difference? Which position do you think Duke agrees with?

Beyond that, though, you have the simple fact that Duke’s alleged endorsement is irrelevant anyway. I will illustrate: Let’s say some weirdo genius is able to resurrect Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Gengis Khan from the dead and they all endorse Trump, enthusiastically and unequivocally.  Hitler yells, “Jawohl! Herr Trump ist der best hope for betterment of the master race and containment of das internazional Jew menace! All hail Deutschland!” Stalin proclaims Trump the exalted savior of World Communism, champion of the working class and the reincarnation of Karl Marx; and Khan insists that he and Trump could have a grand old time invading, conquering and pillaging diverse lands while relishing the lamentations of the enemy women.  What the hell difference would any of this make, exactly?  Would Trump’s position somehow be changed because of these endorsements? Would he be different somehow?

The answer is simply, no, Trump’s position would not change, Trump would still be Trump, and it doesn’t matter if a candidate is endorsed by an extremist whose views he doesn’t share.  It is in fact irrelevant, unless you happen to be of similar mindset to a six year old: “That other kid that I hate says he likes you, so I am going to beat you up, scum!!”  It’s completely ridiculous, and I say that as someone who, as a kid, was actually subjected to that type of asinine behavior (on one occasion).  It is certainly unworthy of people who purport to be serious political commentators, politicians or journalists.  The expectation of disavowal is clearly a shibboleth, and a lame attempt to push Trump down the slippery slope of liberal virtue signalling.

I have little doubt that typical Trump supporters understand all of this, at least at a gut level.  Whether or not swing voters get it is something less certain, but we’ll see.  One advantage that Trump has at this point in the race is that his primary opponents have pretty successfully managed to tar and feather themselves. Everybody knows Cruz is dishonest and Rubio is out of his depth, even their supporters (who nonetheless don’t want to admit it to themselves).

It’s going to be an interesting night.

A couple ‘a vids

I’ve watched a lot of Trump vids over the past 6 months.  Mostly rallies, some interviews, speeches, portions of the debates. A variety of stuff. Much of it is very worth watching. Yesterday’s rallies in Forth Worth and Oklahoma City, for instance: both among the best that I’ve seen.

Tonight, though, I came across something special so I will link it here, I encourage everyone to give it a click and enjoy:

Learn to Love TRUMP in 12 Minutes or Less

I won’t embed that because it’s much better in a full sized window, preferably hi-def if your regional YouTube server can feed it to you.

One of the best things about it is all the crowd shots.  Having watched so many rallies where the cameras never! move! one! single! inch! it’s really refreshing, even thrilling, to see the size of these crowds.

Here’s another good one by that same person:

Donald Trump – A Great Leader, Father & American

My favorite part of that one is when he asks all the little kids if they want a ride in his helicopter and they all yell, “Yeaaaaaahhh!!!!!”  Gotta love it!

Both of these were put together by an anonymous person called merely “A Donald Trump Fan.”  I don’t have a YouTube account, so I will say here: Great job, whoever you are.

Seen on the web:

“I’m moving to Canada if Trump becomes president.”
“What about Mexico?”
“I don’t want to live in Mexico, it sucks!”
“Me either, that’s why I’m voting for Trump!”

I LOLed.

I wonder what would happen if one were to ask such a person what exactly it is that “sucks” about Mexico.

 

10 Feet Taller

I had some minor car trouble today, which gave me some unexpected time to watch one of the recent Trump rallies.  This one was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, held yesterday.  It’s one of the better rallies I’ve seen.  Here’s a link to the video:

Trump rally, Baton Rouge, Feb. 11, 2016

(Skip the first hour of that, he starts talking around 1:01:00.)

What’s the best part? Towards the end, he’s talking about the wall, and how the president of Mexico said, “Mexico is NEVER going to pay for that wall. NEVER.”  So the press calls on Trump and asks, “Do you have a comment?” Trump’s response, “Yes, tell him the wall just got 10 feet taller. Tell him.” And the crowd goes wild.

Sanders on open borders

This is interesting. Bernie Sanders talking about the open borders concept, as part of a more lengthy interview. In summary, he’s opposed to it.  A short excerpt:

Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing …

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein
Really?

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.

Ezra Klein
But it would make …

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me …

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

There’s more on the subject, I recommend clicking the link above to see what Sanders has to say.  In particular, the interviewer goes on to badger Sanders some more about how open borders would really be the best option for world peace, fuzzy little bunnies and pink unicorns, but Bernie isn’t having it. Good for him.

I’m especially intrigued by Sanders positing a connection between open borders and the Koch brothers.  I’d actually be able to use that, if this issue ever came up in discussion with my liberal relatives.  They tend to be pretty moonbatty, but, as with a lot of liberals, one of their sure-fire trigger words is “Koch brothers.”  I wouldn’t even need to assert a Koch brothers connection as true, I’d only have to say, “Bernie Sanders thinks open borders is a plot funded by the Koch brothers to drive down wages,” and viola, meme planted.

I’m not planning on voting for Sanders, but he’d be a better choice than Hillery Clinton, globalist plutocrat stooge that she is.

The choice in the upcoming primaries is clear: If you’re a die hard liberal or socialist of some kind, vote for Sanders, and get all your friends to vote for Sanders. The rest of us don’t lean socialist, so our obvious choice is Trump, except for the few who have some vested interest in keeping legal Americans unemployed.  For them, I might have a suggestion or two relating to flying leaps that might be taken, or lakes which might be jumped into.

A Trump vs. Sanders matchup in the general election….that would be mighty interesting.