Tag Archives: political theater

Hypocrites rejoice

Here’s the perfect quote for today:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – Bill Clinton, President of the United States

To be perfectly clear, the fact that Bill Clinton is the person who said it is not the point.  The point is that those words were said by a Democratic President who, when his on-the-record lie and the activities relating to it were discovered, retained the full support of liberals and feminists, including the whiny-assed liberal crybabies who now believe that Trump’s off-the-record, private statements somehow disqualify him from the presidency.  You can not have supported Clinton then and oppose Trump now without being a complete and total hypocrite.

A tougher nut to crack are so-called conservatives who have sided with the liberals on this. I’m not talking about people like that miserable double-crosser Paul Ryan. Politicians like him make a career out of being slime, so it’s no surprise when they live up to that expectation.

No, I mean ordinary, conservative voters who are somehow so offended by Trump’s remarks as to act as if they believe we would be better off with a criminal in the White House.  So, let’s ask the question: Would we? Would we be better off with an obvious criminal as President of the United States?

There are a lot of other pointed questions I could as as well.  More than I can even think of offhand, really.  But here are just a few:

Would we be better off with someone in the White House whose political career wouldn’t even exist if she hadn’t married the right man, and who, amazingly, believes that this gives her the right to be this nation’s first female president? Do we actually want our first female president to be someone who so clearly does not deserve that honor?

Do we really want a President who seems to actually desire a shooting war with Russia?

Do we really want a President who’s made a career of selling her influence to the highest bidder, and who has been better at it than any other politician in history?

If elected, Clinton is going to get the chance to nominate up to five liberal justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention putting liberals in lower level federal courts.  These are all lifetime appointments, virtually unimpeachable, and all of these courts have the power to override any state law that they want to. Liberal judges have demonstrated time and time again that the Constitution means whatever silly damned thing they say it means, and how dare we question their superior wisdom? The Supreme Court can even override Congress, which makes a Hillary Clinton presidency genuinely dangerous to the long-term viability of this nation as a free republic. Is that what you want?

Would we be better off with the ratification of the TPP?  Do you understand how that is an infinitely more important issue than all of this made-up “Trump is a bad, bad man!” horseshit, which not one person in the press ever said anything about until his candidacy threatened to upset their pre-planned succession to the presidency?

And, as long as I’ve mentioned that, since when does the press get to decide who is president in this country, anyway, and why exactly should we allow them to get away with it? If some liberal reporters at the Washington Post had given Trump the exact same level of consideration that the press had given Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. The Post released this information because they want to make sure that the American people don’t make the “wrong” choice in November.  They believe that they and all the other educated liberal elites are the only people who really, truly understand what is good for this country, and the fact that they are only a small minority of the electorate is of no concern to them.  They know right and wrong far, far better than us ordinary people ever will, so we better just shut up and let them decide for us, right? I ask again:  Since when do liberal reporters get to decide what is right and wrong for this country?  Who the hell gave them the right to do that?

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.

Who should liberals support for President?

Take a look at this quote:

We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!

An American presidential candidate said that.  Look at what he’s saying. Does that not sound pretty close to something that an old style liberal candidate might say?  Grass roots liberals used to espouse exactly this sort of ideal, and used it to appeal to working class voters.

So who actually said it?

The style is the giveaway: Donald Trump said it.

What Trump is doing in this campaign is remarkable in a number of ways, but perhaps what is most heartening is that he is able to frame things in ways that that liberals and conservatives ought to agree on. Ask a Black Lives Matter supporter, for instance, what might be accomplished with $4 trillion and whether he wouldn’t support using that money for domestic programs rather than pissing it away in useless overseas wars. It’s a no brainer!

Trump has been demonstrating that the long-standing left-right political game in the US is largely theater—a fiction, a contrived drama that focuses on hot-button issues to keep us occupied while the elite go about their business of screwing over the entire world at our expense.  If only liberals would pay attention to what he says.

I have a feeling that Trump will be doing more to attract center-left voters as the primary race moves along, while at the same time deftly avoiding alienating his conservative supporters.  He is foraging a new political coalition, and one that sorely needs to form: a coalition of Americans who actually love America.  We do have some dissent on what exactly to do about that, but what we have in common is our ultimate goal: to make America great again.

Stupid parliament

Today, rather than spending their time debating issues of actual importance, the UK Parliament decided to allocate three hours of their limited time to debate the subject of whether Donald Trump should be banned from setting foot in the United Kingdom.

Let’s say they decide to ban him.  Does anyone think he actually cares? Does anyone think it’ll actually harm his chances on voting day? Does anyone doubt that if Trump wins the election they’ll fall all over themselves to backpedal such a silly and childish action?

If it happens, Trump’s response will undoubtedly be some variation of, “Who cares. The UK? They’re irrelevant.” With one sanctimonious outburst, the United Kingdom will have lowered itself from “no greater friend” status of the George W. Bush era, to “who cares.” Talk about effective democracy.

Incidentally, as I proofread this post and double-checked some of the info, I learned that this debate isn’t even binding! It’s 100% posturing, pure and simple.