September 30, 2016
— CDR M
VDH nails it. The next President unbound.
Congress has proven woefully inept at asserting its constitutional right to check and balance Obama's executive overreach.more...
The courts have often abdicated their own oversight.
But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip. One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be. In 2017, a President Trump or a President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight - thanks to the precedent of Obama's overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.
— Ace Happy Friday.
Do something interesting for yourself this weekend. Something you've wanted do and have put off. Something you're afraid to do or embarrassed will make you look silly or not good at some (completely foreign) task.
— Ace Debate Commission admits Trump was right -- there was a problem with his microphone at the debate.
I do enjoy how the #SmartSet sagely waits for evidence to amass before rendering their snarky analyses on Twitter.
— Open Blogger
A long time ago I was assigned a novel to read. Considering that this was a business class I was a little puzzled, but it turned out to be a rather good way of teaching the simple yet almost universally ignored concept that success comes only when the goal of the endeavor is understood. Cleverly, the book was called The Goal.
So what is the goal of the conservative movement? The pat answer is that the goal should be to elect a conservative president whose political philosophy is in line with that of the Founders, so that the vast bureaucratic state can be rolled back and the country can begin its return to one that is governed by a limited, tightly controlled central government, and power returned to the states.
And that's not a criticism. It's what I want and believe, but at least for the medium term it is untenable. more...
— Ace I didn't write about MeAgain Kelly's performance the other night. Not last night, but Wednesday night.
She made a strange claim near the beginning of her update. She claimed something like "I think some in the audience got tripped up about what the piece was about," and then claimed, falsely (more on that in a moment), that she was not asking Alicia Machado about her own allegations (that Trump had called her "Miss Piggie" and, with a racist edge that fits oh so perfectly into Hillary's narrative, "Miss Housekeeping."
She said she was focusing on things he had provably said, things he was on tape saying, like telling Howard Stern "she was the worst" and she was an "eating machine."
But Megyn Kelly had asked Alicia Machado about the "Miss Piggie" and "Miss Housekeeping" claims, despite dissembling that the segment wasn't "about" those things. Kelly asked about both, then asked Machado if there were witnesses. Machado responded in broken English that maybe there were, people "from his office" or something like that.
MeAgain Kelly did not challenge her on this vague claim that maybe there were some people "from his office" who had witnessed him saying these things, nor did she ask who these people were. (At least, not in the edited interview; maybe she asked about it but then omitted Machado's evasive replies, which raises another set of questions about bias.)
But as the interview as presented stood, MeAgain Kelly had asked about those claims, Machado had said there were witnesses, and then MeAgain left that claim to stand unchallenged and without any further probing about who these alleged witnesses were.
Now, why would MeAgain make this claim? Why would she claim she had not asked about the Miss Piggie and Miss Housekeeping claims when she not only had asked about them, but then did not challenge Machado or ask obvious follow-ups when Machado said there were people "from his office" who heard them?
Simple. Kelly was dissembling. She was embarrassed that Anderson Cooper of all people had interrogated Machado on her very dubious credibility, asking her about her alleged role in threatening judges and driving cars away from the scene of a murder, which she did not deny but only said "I am not a saint girl."
Kelly was embarrassed that she had treated yet another #GirlInNeedOfHerDefending with kid gloves and her Concerned Face, showing little sketpicism but plenty of Solidarity for the Sisterhood.
So what she attempted to imply was that there was no need to ask about Machado's credibility, as Kelly was, allegedly but falsely, only asking about the statements Trump made on tape, statements whose existence does not rely whatsoever on Machado's credibility.
Get it? You don't have to ask about Machado's credibility if you're asking her about things for which independent proof exists. It doesn't matter if I am a liar if I tell you it's cloudy out and the National Weather Service can tell you it's cloudy out too.
Several problems, though: 1, as I noted, Kelly did ask about these things and let Machado's assertion that there were unnamed, vague ghosts of witnesses to them stand unchallenged, and 2, if Kelly is claiming she didn't have to scrutinize Machado's background and credibility because she wasn't eliciting any information from Machado, but just inquiring into documented events, why bother having Machado on and asking her any questions at all?
It makes no sense. If Kelly just wants to talk about the Stern interview and Trump's press conference where he talks about Machado (and defends her to a press looking to humiliate her), then why not just play those tapes and talk about it with an "analyst"?
The only reason to talk to Machado is to draw information out of Machado from her own experience and of her own testimony, and her credibility is is relevant for that stuff.
MeAgain Kelly wants to dissemble and claim she didn't go into any of those areas (she did), and therefore there was no lawyerly reason to scrutinize Machado's past to determine her credibility (there was and remains such a reason).
Sorry, MeAgain. No one was "tripped up" about the topic of your interview except those fools credulous enough to believe your post-ante spin about it.
When you're eliciting a subject's own narrative, her credibility is always relevant.
Kelly's still so traumatized by Trump she will now just spin like a top in order to excuse her lack of journalistic scrutiny into a story cooked up for her by her galpal Hillary.
She's a water-carrier for Hillary, incapable of being objective due to her First Degree Tweeting at the hands of Trump.
When even CNN's Anderson Cooper shows more objectivity on this issue than you do -- you've got problems, Princess.
She should not be permitted to cover Trump if she's going to go out of her way to paper over the credibility problems of Hillary surrogates and then dissemble about her reasons for doing so.
Oh, one thing: I think she did read my post after all.
Because this time she did not Summon the Male Defenders to reassure her she did everything right.
This time, she summoned a female defender to reassure her she did everything right -- Dana Perino.
At the end of their gabfest, they mutually agreed that Men are simply Not Allowed to discuss a Woman's Weight, even if that woman is a beauty pageant winner whose entire career is based on people judging her appearance (look it up, sweetums), and even if her weight gain has become a major tabloid story and an embarrassment for Trump's organization.
Now, I'm partial to Dana Perino, so I'm going to credit her as only meaning that as a tactic in political messaging, Trump should drop talking about Machado's weight, as it's a tarbaby situation that can only tangle him up more and more.
But I cannot credit MeAgain Kelly as meaning that, because she plainly stated that men just should not talk about a woman's weight -- any woman's weight, period -- because "it makes us upset" (or words to that close effect).
Then she said that Trump himself was "clinically overweight" himself -- I guess that doesn't make him upset, or, more likely, Only Girls are Protected By the Bizarre Rules of Feminist Privilege.
And don't give me that jazz that Trump's weight is relevant here -- it's not. Trump does not have to be thin and cut to be a beauty pageant owner.
But Machado was required -- legally required, by contract! -- to maintain a certain weight as a beauty pageant winner.
So MeAgain Kelly's rule is that Trump can't talk about a woman's weight, but MeAgain can snipe "Oh by the way, Trump's fat."
And of course then dissemble about why she didn't ask about highly relevant allegations about Machado's past (and therefore about her credibility).
By the way, at least as of this show, MeAgain still had not breathed a word about Machado's apparently checkered past.
She did take time, though, in the beginning of the segment to praise herself for having attacked Trump on Hillary's #WaronWomen meme at the first Republican debate.
So like, whatever, make sure you tune into MeAgain Kelly to get pissed on and then have her chippily report: "It seems to be raining. Oh, and girls are keen, boys are mean."
But MeAgain Kelly's long-running audition tape to be the first solo female anchor on a (left-wing) network continues rolling along nicely.
— Ace Su Abuela no es buena.
In 2008, 74% said they'd definitely vote. (Note this doesn't mean they did vote, but the first prerequisite to bothering to cast a vote is having a definite intent to vote.)
In 2012, Hope and Change dropped that number to 58%. Thanks, Obama!
But in 2016, in fell even further to 47%.
Note that this demographic despises Trump -- and would produce a lot of votes if they were animated to vote for Su Abuela.
But it seems they're not.
There's more interesting stuff in the link -- there is, in fact, a universe of non-college educated white voters who usually don't vote who could swamp Su Abuela at the polls if they turned out.
And some of these infrequent voters -- likely Trump voters, mostly -- are finally registering to vote.
But most aren't.
Trump's cheapskate/can't be bothered approach to registration and GOTV operations could wind up being his downfall.
Well, there are fifty nine things that could wind up being his downfall. But this seems to be the easiest to fix and thus the most difficult to excuse.
— Open Blogger Barack Obama came to the White House knowing nothing of substance. He will leave office without learning anything of substance. However he did hone his skills of rationalization.
Take for example Syria.
man boy child who gave us Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. You remember her. The SoS who in 2011 uttered this brilliant remark.
Theres a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe hes a reformer.
The Barack Obama who in 2012 would hold Assad to account for the use of chemical weapons; the famous "red line". Now he is backtracking with excuses layered upon excuse.
No one but Obama is responsible for that red line. He drew in August 2012 it despite the fact that Damascus was an ally of Tehran and a client of Moscow at the time. When that line was repeatedly crossed, it was Obama who withdrew his threat. It was Obama who warned that non-intervention would lead to a future in which U.S. troops faced chemical weapons on the battlefield a warning that has proven accurate. It was Obama who looked the other way as Iranian military and proxy forces flooded into Syria in his first term, and it was Obama who invited greater direct Russian involvement in that conflict in his second. It was Obamas desire to partner with these nations for the sake of an Iranian nuclear agreement that stayed his hand.
As Commander in Chief he has an obligation and fiduciary duty to U.S. armed forces. A little mustard gas here. A little mustard gas there. No big deal and it's not my fault. Besides I have to give billions of dollars to Iran.
That region has been a mixed up tumultuous region for centuries. Between the various tribes, the differences between the Shiites and Sunnis you have one messed up region. The strongest democracy in the region is Israel and it is spat upon by this administration and the Democratic nominee for POTUS.
Is there a solution for peace? Probably not. But neither candidate who wins the presidency should go into their presidency uttering useless and thoughtless words. Because we all know words have meanings and actions have consequences.
Why Is the Media Deliberately Making Its Stories Less Interesting By Refusing to Mention That?
— Ace Questions that will never be answered, I'm afraid. It's a mystery.
As a rule, reporters like to keep their stories interesting, which is why the coverage weve seen of Alicia Machado is so curious.
This has been the week of Machado, who became famous literally overnight when Hillary Clinton brought her up at Monday's debate. The next day saw numerous outlets writing pieces on Machado, boosted along by a conference call held by the Clinton campaign for journalists.
The former Miss Universe, who says that Donald Trump fat-shamed her and alleges that he called her "Ms. Piggy" and "Ms. Housekeeping," and generally humiliated her after she put on weight, is now the star of a Clinton ad. An obscure figure in America less than a week ago, Machado is perhaps the biggest story in politics at the moment.
So it's almost inexplicable that, despite all this coverage, the publications discussing the extraordinary stories of her life are mostly right-wing ones.
The most interesting thing about the mainstream articles is what they leave out.
There is no discussion at CNN or The New York Times, for instance, about her post-pageant fame as the fiancee of Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu, or how he reportedly called it off after a reality show she was on revealed video of her apparently having sex with a housemate.
Likewise, there is little mention of how a Venezuelan judge once alleged on live TV that Machado had threatened to kill him. Or how the Mexican attorney general's office later said she was the girlfriend of a major narco trafficker, and that she he had a child with him, according to Univision and other outlets. Or how a government witness who reportedly testified about their affair was later shot to death.
Machado has lived a full life, and a uniquely fascinating one. So why would any journalist avoid talking about it?
By the way, the writer says that even if these things about Machado are true, that wouldn't detract from Trump's "racism and sexism" in making those remarks about her.
But we only have her word for t hat. The "racist" one -- "Miss Housekeeping" -- in particular only comes from her mouth. There are no witnesses to this claim.
So if it is true that she has had this colorful life of cheating on a fiance (on a filmed Big Brother style reality show), and being involved with narco kingpins, and issuing threats on the life of a judge, and maybe being peripherally involved in a light murder -- that sort of bears on her credibility, doesn't it?
And that, of course, is precisely why it's not being talked about -- and why MeAgain Kelly refuses to talk about it.
— Open Blogger
This is a painting of the most famous boat of American sailing's most famous class; The J Boat.
Her name was Ranger, and she was 135 feet long. Many of the J boats were manned by Norwegian crews, and were said to be powered by "Norwegian steam." The J boats were built for one reason; to defend the America's Cup against the superb British sailors who were desperate to bring "the auld mug" to England. The Ranger, under the command of Harold Vanderbilt swept the British in the 1937 race.
The link in the image goes to a mock up of a modern J boat. Amazingly, they are building them again to the original rule written in 1903 by Nathanael Herreshoff, America's greatest yacht designer.
— Open Blogger HOT NEWS
- Flashpoint in the Subcontinet: Indian Army Attacks Jihadis Inside Pakistan
- Pakistan Threatens Nuclear Retaliation
We now resume our regularly scheduled post, already in progress:
What a horrible week (yeah, "ma-nish-tanah," right?). Well, at least it's Friday. Have a better one, at least until we lose the internet at the stroke of midnight. And speaking of Hebrew, L'shana Tovah to my fellow members-of-tribe in the Horde, and the rest of you gentle gentiles for a blessed and healthy 5777.
- Latest on Jersey Train Crash
- Even When He Loses, He Wins
- GOP Caves on Budget, Then Skips Town (aka Standard Operating Procedure)
- Will SCOMAF Unilaterally Declare Palestinian Statehood?
- SCOTUS To Hear "Slants" Case That Affects the Redskins Name Controversy
- Pass the Popcorn! Rawlings-Blake and Mosby Go At It
- Tracking Hurricane Matthew in the Caribbean
September 29, 2016
— Open Blogger OK nobody likes the ONT. Pity, it took a lot of work to put it together. So here's what we'll do. Go down there and read and view the content, then come back up here to comment. No gifs up here. Easy loading. No lag. Save your data plans. Simple, no?
Sorry, was trying for something different. Didn't realize it would bollocks up so many people's devices.
— Open Blogger WARNING, THIS IS A GIF HEAVY POST. IT MAY LOAD SLOWLY BELOW THE CUT
ETA Apparently, the gifs were still causing problems for some people, even below the cut. I've changed all of the embedded gif to links. Click the link below each line to view the gif.
I'd like to open by letting you all know what an honor it is to be asked to address this distinguished ONT. I know it's been a long day for most of you, so I'll try to keep this brief.
* pause for applause *
What does one say to a group of such fine young men and women? Certainly, I may have life experiences that you lack, but that is only due to my advanced age and the good luck I've had not to fall into any open manholes. You people today are certainly smarter than I was at your age, and a good many of you are better looking – not you Ace. Again, what does one say to such bright young group of future leaders? There's a reason these things run to cliches, and that's because those of us tapped to address groups like this ultimately only have our life experiences to fall back on. With that in mind, I'd like share just a few words of advice.
— Ace I have a series of appointments tomorrow. I'm putting some posts into draft, and I'll hopefully get to put a couple up on the run during the day, but I'll be out of the office most of the day.
If any coblogs have something, please fire away.
— Ace I guess because she's smart, huh?
Tax deductions that Bill and Hillary Clinton took for computer maintenance expenses match up closely with payments they made to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary Clintons personal email technician, a Daily Caller investigation reveals.
The payments to Pagliano were revealed in notes released on Friday from his Dec. 22 interview with the bureau. Investigators cited documents showing that the Clintons made a $5,000 transfer to Pagliano in 2009, and another in June 2011 for $8,350.83.
The Clintons' publicly available tax filings show that the former first couple deducted similar amounts from Bill Clintons speechmaking income for computer maintenance expenses in those same years.
So you can't blame Hillary for her illegal email server-- you paid for it, after all.
By the way, the State Department as admitted, in the course of a lawsuit, that 5,600 of the emails Clinton did not turn over but which were subsequently reconstituted by the FBI were work-related emails, and therefore that she lied when she claimed only personal emails had been deleted.
— Ace So my only ongoing project, still not begun, is taking climbing lessons. I'd planned for this week or the next but now I'm wondering if I should wait.
Because, as hard to believe as it might seem, my grip strength isn't all it could be.
Some of the commenters got me interested in writing again. Still no go on that, though.
Does anyone have any interests or hobbies they're pursuing, or plan to? If so, let us know. Maybe you can interest others or maybe you can serve as a mentor for n00bz.
One thing I'm thinking about doing is getting back into learning Spanish, which I started, like most things, with boundless enthusiasm, and then, like most things, dropped like a lump of dogshit.
Given that our Corporate Overclass is pretty determined this be a bilingual nation, and given that Spanish is a well-organized language which seems, I think, relatively easy to learn, would anyone be interested in a Spanish thread at some point?
— Ace I alluded to this in the post below but did not have a link. I just knew it from John Sexton.
The Obama administration failed to follow its own health care law by directing funds to insurers instead of taxpayers, nonpartisan government investigators said Thursday, chalking up a win for GOP critics and denting the White House's ability to satisfy insurers who are losing money under the overhaul.
The Affordable Care Act established a three-year "reinsurance" program to collect funds from participating insurers and then pay a portion to plans that took on costlier enrollees. Yet it was supposed to allocate some of its collections to the Treasury, too.
The administration projected it would take in $10 billion for reinsurance purposes and $2 billion for the Treasury in 2014, the programs first year.
When collections fell short of estimates, the Health and Human Services Department prioritized payments to insurers over the Treasury, angering Republicans who said the agency put its contentious program over taxpayers, who got nothing.
That was illegal, that was incandescently unconstitutional, but seriously guys, we should elect Hillary Clinton to teach those low-class non-college-educated hooligans who want to replace the Presidential Seal with Pepe the Frog to ever fuck with our enlightened and benevolent power again.
I mean, Trump called an overweight beauty pageant winner overweight.
We can't have that. Not quite our class, dear.
— Ace I always had a secret respect for Rosanne Barr's politics. No, not her actual politics -- I thought they were daft.
But the respect was due to her talking about things that actually mattered, even if her prescriptions about those things was completely wrong and harmful.
I contrast her to the typical lifestyle liberal who is economically well-off enough not to have to care about things like OSHA and unions. I don't support unions, don't get me wrong. (Well, I would if they were properly constructed and limited instead of being artificially-government-empowered organizations for graft.)
But rather than talking about the typical lifestyle liberal's litany of very airy abstract concerns -- global warming, gay marriage and gay wedding cakes, pronoun "misgendering" etc. -- she was talking about improving the financial circumstances of the lower classes.
Now, again, her prescriptions were entirely wrong. But at least she was talking about something that mattered a bit more than not at all.
I find this sort of thing going on with the GOP's very-proud-to-have-a-very-basic-college-degree class. All they want to talk about is airy abstraction like the "health of the party" and "political philosophy."
They don't seem to give a shit that the entire midwest is being de-instrustrialized, the working classes being immiserated by the remorseless importation of low-skilled Replacement Workers.
The actual working classes of this country are being decimated partly by natural market forces (and that's fine, if regrettable) and partly by intentional government policy (and that's not so fine).
Nor do they seem to want to talk about the tangible consequences of a Hillary presidency. They just want to talk about "recapturing the party" and "renewing the party" and that kind of airy facile nonsense that is only of interest to someone who is financially well-off enough to be largely immune from the maladministration of government.
I don't begrudge them their apparent exalted financial situation due to being fortunate enough -- or, let's be fair, having worked hard enough -- to not really care about average median income stagnation or the fact that the US has the lowest labor participation rate since the bomb that was the Carter Economy of the late 1970s.
It can't be held against them that they are prosperous -- prosperity is to be celebrated. (Though find a Republican besides Donald Trump who has the simple courage to utter such an inoffensive statement.)
But what can be held against them is their utter parochialism and proviciniality, in which they take their own experience to be that of all other citizens and/or cynically ignore all citizens whose financial status puts them in a more precarious position than they themselves occupy.
So, for all the people dishonestly campaigning for Hillary without admitting it (in order to keep on track in their real first priority -- career advancement), here are some of the consequences that "Saving the Party by Giving the White House to Hillary for Four or Eight Years" will have on people whose salaries are not guaranteed by deep-pocketed donors.
1. The Supreme Court Shifts Unalterably to the Hard Left for a Generation.
Scalia's dead, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is ancient, Clarence Thomas is getting long in the tooth, Anthony Kennedy's old, Steven Breyer is old.
The only youthful justices are Roberts -- and you know, you can always count on him on a tough vote -- Alito, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
It's those last four who will be on the court in eight years -- everyone else is going to be replaced in the next four or eight years.
Keep this one in mind: it has a big impact on some of the points that follow.
2. Obamacare Will Be Patched Up by an Illegal, Unauthorized Executive-Action Slush Fund.
As you know, Obamacare is in its death spiral. As predicted, it is not taking in as much money as it is spending out.
There are only two solutions to this:
1. Raise the prices of Obamacare, but this is not a solution, as the prices are already too high and raising prices will only expedite the death spiral, or
2. Illegally divert general taxpayer funds to shore up Obamacare, by executive actions increasing and extending "risk corridors" and other such workarounds.
That's all illegal, you say. Well, Health and Human Services has already illegally diverted Three Billion Dollars to this illegal cause already, and no one's going to jail for that.
Now you say: That is so illegal the Supreme Court will knock down any executive orders spending money that Congress hasn't authorized.
See point one and note that Elena Kagan was part of the team that designed and sold Obamacare to Congress.
Also note that the Court, whenever it likes, can read into an act's preamble -- something something "for the purpose of making health care available to all" something something -- an explicit (they will claim) authorization to use whatever means are necessary to keep the the law "working the way it was intended to."
Remember, the law plainly did not authorize subsidies for exchanges created by the federal government, but the Supreme Court, led by Roberts, said that they would read the law as authorizing such subsidies because without such a Judicial Edit, the purposes of the law would be thwarted.
You sure the Court isn't willing to do some more Judicial Editing?
Especially once it's stacked and jacked with Young Turk liberals who will be serving Democrat presidents for 40 years?
3. An Increase in the Tempo and Illegality of "Dear Colleague" Letters Issued by the Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights.
As you're no doubt aware, the Office of Civil Rights pressured colleges into instituting Rape Kangaroo Courts through a "Dear Colleague" letter that essentially threatened to cut off their federal funding if they did not strictly enforce the OCR's new reading of Title IX.
You may also be aware that the Office of Civil Rights imposed a new directive on colleges to read Title IX -- which formally speaks of protecting women and girls -- as also protecting Transgenders, including male-to-"female" transgenders, who are not women or girls.
What authority did they have to do this? None at all. But the courts did not stop them.
Increasingly, the federal government is enacting laws it could never actually enact through constitutional means by simply threatening to withdraw funds if targeted organizations do not obey the de facto law they are now illegally announcing, and then relying on the indulgence of the courts to make it all look street-legal.
This will not only continue under Hillary Clinton -- it will accelerate.
Again, see Point One.
Also note this: Every bizarre idea you see pushed by the left becomes the accepted law of the land within two to three years.
Before the left began demanding Christians bake them bake cakes, the idea of such a thing was insane, and anyone who argued that the gay marriage law would wind up compelling people to participate in gay marriages was ridiculed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Yet two years later, those paranoid conspiracy theories became the law of the land.
Right now we're seeing various localities make it a crime to "misgender" people.
You think Hillary's government is going to stay out of that racket? Or do you think it's likely that some more Dear Colleague letters will issue and that will become the law of the land in two or three years?
Never forget, the left must continue picking fights with the right in order to keep its voters voting. Even if everyone on the right accepts gay marriage, but adds "But you can't force churces to participate," what do you think the left's next move is?
The left must now begin agitating to force churches to perform gay marriage. For if they don't -- if they simply leave the policy as it is -- then what can they offer their supporters? How can they differentiate themselves from the right (who, in this hypothetical, accepts gay marriage except in the churches)?
The logic of the left -- to always be the aggressors in the culture wars and always spit venom and hatred at those who oppose their new social engineering initiatives -- demands they always move forward, like sharks.
I laugh when I see National Review or other "conservative" magazines still bothering to pretend they oppose this. Still getting clicks for the latest outrage they can point to from the left, from the wacky college campuses.
Meanwhile, they're actively campaigning for more of it, to empower this regime, to encourage it, to expand it.
You're signing up for four to eight more years of unending social aggression from the left, discarding your one chance to actually do a god-damn thing about it, so just spare me your make-pretend, this-should-get-us-easy-clicks ginned up outrage about it.
Apparently your preferred method of opposing unconstitutional government coercion is to just keep churning out clickbait snark about it. Because that's been working like gangbusters so far.
I will add the rest of the list later. I think one through three is enough for the first half of a post.
— Ace Slow start today. Getting past a migraine.
I'm also pretty depressed. Apparently, some in this party really do think they're going to hand the election to Hillary, and, bizarrely, they think this will bully the rest of us into knuckling under to their agenda in 2020.
Rather than simply getting payback and tanking their candidate in return.
This party is on the verge of self-destructing. The upper class of the party is upset that the lower class has finally had its say, and they're determined that should never be permitted to happen again.
Why then would anyone of the lower class ever vote for the GOP again? Are they required to sign a piece of paper confirming that they are Lessers who should know their place in order to have the privilege of voting against their own interests?
I'm personally probably defecting to the Democrats after this. All my life I've been animated by one idea in politics. Not about guns, not about abortion, not even about national security. (Okay, that last one is important.)
But what caused me to join the GOP is the very palpable idea emanating from the liberals that there was a group of people empowered due to their position and education to Lead Us, and the rest of us had no say in the affairs of the country. They were to make decisions for us, and we were to follow.
This idea saw flower in the media itself, where a group of people who had no particular expertise in history or political philosophy, and who weren't even terribly intelligent, used the simple happenstance of having jobs giving them control over information as a justification to deceive and manipulate people into supporting their agenda.
I see that currently happening in the "conservative" media, where we have a hundred people who claim to be #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary but, strangely enough, never talk about the downsides of a Hillary presidency. Oh, they'll talk up how much of an authoritarian Trump is, but not Hillary's sense of entitlement, grievance, vengeance, and her own history of authoritarianism and lawlessness in covering up her crimes.
They talk all day about "Principles," but discard the most basic principles -- such as keeping a proven lawbreaker out of the White House, or just honestly admitting which candidate they're actually supporting to their readers -- as convenience may recommend.
In fact, right now they're howling about Ted Cruz' "calculations" in endorsing Trump, while not admitting their own pose of "Being Against Both Equally" is in fact a completely contrived lie they've calculated will permit them to agitate for their candidate (Hillary) while not compromising their career prospects within Conservatism, Inc. too much.
How much can I agitate for Hillary while still retaining plausible deniability?
How much can I agitate for Hillary to appease my anti-Trump donors while still keeping enough pro-Trump readers that my anti-Trump donors will feel they're getting enough eyeballs per dollar of their patronage?
The party -- not just the party;the writers who are supposed to have telling the truth as their first mission, but instead of become nonstop liars all the time decrying Trump as a liar himself -- has declared war on all of the Lessers beneath their station, those not in The Media and who should, therefore, not have quite as much of a say in things as they themselves have.
They've made themselves into exactly what they pretend to oppose -- and exactly what I do in fact oppose.
I think I'm out. And I think I'm defecting to the Democrats after this because, if I have a choice between one group of corrupt lying scumbags who think their (much over-vaunted) position gives them special rights in this democracy unavailable to the commoners, then I'll side with the party where I get the least social grief.
If I'm to get nothing I want from either party -- not even the minimum respect of being offered the truth -- then I'll go with the party where I don't have to make apologies for my political leanings at parties.
If their both liars and elitist scumbags who think they have Right to Rule, what the fuck do I care which of them is in charge?
There's also a self-protection angle here: the Republican Party is about to make itself a permanent minority party -- good luck winning elections when you've betrayed half your base, geniuses! -- and that means the executive power, the power of law enforcement and prosecution, will be in the hands of the Democrats, forever.
I don't know if this party of liars and fools has given us much choice but to start making peace with our new perpetual political masters.
This party is now determined to give the machinery of prosecution and persecution to the Democrats until at least 2020 and probably 2024. Eight more years under a weaponized IRS and compromised FBI.
Nevermind what's going on in Wisconsin -- and a Hillary-stocked Court won't interject itself to stop that madness.
They're doing this deliberately. They're exposing thousands of their alleged fellow party members to government harassment for four more years and probably eight.
If you're part of an army that's deliberately losing the war, maybe you should start thinking about your own safety and security and slip across No Man's Land to join the other side.
At least that army seems to give a fuck about protecting its own.
— Open Blogger
Lady With Her Pets
Because I am, at heart, a kind and gentle soul I did not use the Egon Schiele self-portrait I found. Just trust me....don't do a search. more...
— Open Blogger One more day and we are free, from this week of misery. Have a better one, kids.
- Babi Yar, 75 Years On
- Congress Finally Slaps Down Imperial Tyrant . . .
- . . . But His Internet Surrender Is Just Days Away
- Sheila Jackass Lee: Imbecile? Chutzpadik? Both?
- Anti-Defamation League Loses Its Mind
- "We Don't Screen Refugees For Radical Views"
- Hilary's Latest Trump "Victim": Ex-Porn Slut, Possible Murder Accomplice
- Vain Ignoramus Bloviates About Voting Third Party
- Forget It, Jake. It's Hymietown
- Told He'd Never Stand Again, Teen Rises for the National Anthem. Suck It Kapernick!
44 queries taking 2.1293 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.