Tag: politics

GOP Sabotage

In case it wasn’t clear from all the anti-Trump commentary by establishment Republicans over the last week, Mike Cernovich reports that elements inside the Republican Party are engaging in an active anti-Trump sabotage campaign:

Donald Trump’s get out the vote efforts have been sabotaged at every level by the GOP, sources report exclusively to this reporter. Some of the sabotage is obvious and clear, and others is more subtle. Their motivations for sabotage vary from personal and professional jealousy to financial.

The bait-and-switch.

When a Donald Trump volunteer goes to the local GOP office to get out the vote, she’ll be sent out to knock on doors for down ballot candidates in neighborhoods Trump has already won. Would-be volunteers have reported to me that when the showed up at the GOP office, the local office would tell them to campaign for other GOP candidates. When the volunteers told the local office that they wanted to campaign for Trump, they were told to leave.

Other would-be volunteers have told me they’d show up to GOP offices only to find the doors had been locked. Their calls would go unreturned. It was simply impossible to volunteer to get out the vote for Donald Trump.

It’s fascinating. I have suspected since the Clinton-Bush campaign that the Republican Party would sometimes rather lose than win, but there is no longer any shadow of a doubt that they are determined to take a fall for Hillary Clinton, just as John McCain did for Obama in 2008.

Can you imagine how well Trump would be doing if he wasn’t fighting a) his opponent, b) both mainstream and conservative medias, and c) his own party’s establishment?

“You’ll be in jail”

And that’s why his idiot handlers should just stay out of the way and let Trump be Trump:

Clinton established herself as a superior bureaucrat Sunday night with more mature knowledge of foreign policy minutiae and a more intelligible way of communicating details about how laws are made. But Trump won on points in what has become the Year of the Outsider, playing to a national television audience that polls show are weary of Washington’s same-old same-old and eager for new blood.

He had Clinton playing defense for most of the 90-minute clash, saying she would be ‘in jail’ if he ran the Justice Department – a reference to her classified email scandal – and declaring that she had ‘tremendous hate in her heart’ when she branded ‘half’ his supporters as ‘deplorables.’

He even bested her on her recollection of her own tenure at the helm of the U.S. State Department.
Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous rhetorical ‘red line’ in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton’s term ended.

As Milo put it on Gab: “Daddy is killing it”. If this builds momentum that Trump can carry through to the third debate, we’re going to see the Trumpslide.

Remember, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, Trump doesn’t constantly push. He relaxes, coasts, and then pushes strongly again. There is nearly one month to go. He’s running against a criminal and he’s already ahead in some national polls. The final push hasn’t even begun.

Frank Lutz Focus Group: Who are you willing to vote for?

BEFORE #DEBATE
• Hillary: 8
• Trump: 9

AFTER DEBATE
• Hillary: 4
• Trump: 18

When white-knighting goes awry

Gammas never grasp that the crowd is always going to choose the Alpha male over them, no matter how adroitly they virtue-signal:

House Speaker Paul Ryan was shouted down by chants of “Trump” at his Fall Fest event Saturday in Wisconsin. Ryan, who kicked off the speech talking about the “elephant in the room,” said that Trump’s banter with Billy Bush before taping an Access Hollywood segment in 2005 was “a troubling situation.”

The chants for “Trump” start at about the 6:40 mark in the video below.

Ryan was joined onstage by Wisconsites Ron Johnson and Scott Walker after the “Trump” shouts began, at the end of Ryan’s speech. Some also shouted, “God bless Trump,” and “See ya, Paul! Jackass!”

Ryan’s miscalculation wasn’t quite as bad as Ted Cruz’s at the RNC, but it was still pretty impressive.

Open trade and open borders

That’s Hillary’s dream and America’s nightmare:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere,” Clinton told Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, on May 16, 2013.

Of course, she isn’t likely to tell the voters that, since everybody’s watching and “you need both a public and a private position.”

Thank you, Julian.

Cuckservatives signal their virtue

You know the GOP establishment cucks were just waiting for the opportunity to have an excuse to wash their hands of Donald Trump:

House Speaker Paul Ryan will not campaign with Donald Trump Saturday as he had previously planned. Ryan made the decision after Trump’s lewd comments about women were leaked Friday afternoon.

“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said in a statement Friday evening. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests. In the meantime, he is no longer attending tomorrow’s event in Wisconsin.”

The House speaker’s staff said the event in Wisconsin was a Ryan event at Fall Fest at the Walworth County Fairgrounds, and that Trump was disinvited after the Washington Post published video of Trump talking on a hot microphone in 2005 about kissing and having sex with a woman, in which the GOP nominee can be heard saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”

If you ever wanted to know why I’m not a conservative or a Republican, this craven pandering to women pretty much sums it up. I’m not sickened by Trump’s locker room talk. I’m sickened by the fact that weak little gamma males like Ryan and Erickson have any influence in Western society at all. The only correct response to this “scandal” should have been a single question: “so the fuck what?”

Never trust a moderate, a Churchian, or a cuckservative. Never. They will stab you in the back in order to virtue-signal every single time. Trump made a big mistake in trying to accommodate them and play nice with them rather than treating them with the contempt they deserve.

We’re getting ominously close to war with both Russia and China, and these idiots are preening and posturing over the fact that an Alpha male talked like an Alpha more than 10 years ago? At least we know one thing. If the USA does get into a war, it’s going to lose. I don’t care what its advantages in men and material might be. Leadership matters, and we don’t have it.

UPDATE: National Review is clutching at its pearls and collapsing on its collective fainting couch and the cucks are falling all over themselves to finger-wag and demand ever-more-abject apologies from Trump. He shouldn’t have even given the limited one he offered.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a similarly terse statement. “These comments are repugnant, and unacceptable in any circumstance,” he said. “As the father of three daughters, I strongly believe that Trump needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere, and take full responsibility for the utter lack of respect for women shown in his comments on that tape.” Like Ryan, however, McConnell gave no suggestion of withdrawing his support for Trump. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus offered his own brief rebuke: “No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever.” And yet there is no question the party chairman will continue to back Trump — in fact, a statement from the nominee’s campaign late Friday night said Priebus would be joining him in New York on Saturday for debate prep. It’s not just the party leadership in Washington that’s showing no appetite for taking on Trump.

A whole host of Republican senators, including nearly all of those facing reelection next month, issued statements Friday night expressing outrage at the nominee’s remarks. They came from: Arizona’s John McCain; North Carolina’s Richard Burr; Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey; New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte; and Ohio’s Rob Portman, among others. But not one of these senators announced any kind of opposition to Trump — whether by withdrawing their support or by calling on him to step down as the nominee.

A few Republicans, in fairness, did just that. Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who’s facing certain defeat next month, tweeted: “.@realDonaldTrump should drop out. @GOP should engage rules for emergency replacement.” Utah Governor Gary Herbert tweeted: “Donald Trump’s statements are beyond offensive & despicable. While I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, I will not vote for Trump.” Utah Senator Mike Lee posted a video calling on Trump to drop out. Another Utah Republican, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz, withdrew his support for Trump. And two House Republicans — Mike Coffman of Colorado and Barbara Comstock of Virginia — called on Trump to step down as the Republican nominee.

Is this going to change anything? For a few days of polling, perhaps. And then, once the virtue-signaling runs its course, everyone will remember that the alternative is letting Hillary Clinton start a war with Russia.

Clinton calls for drone strikes in London

Then can’t remember having done so:

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday denied reports that she once suggested taking out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with a drone strike.

“I don’t know anything about what [WikiLeaks] is talking about, and I don’t recall any joke,” the Democratic nominee told reporters Tuesday. “It would have been a joke if it had been said, but I don’t recall that.”

WikiLeaks tweeted a screen grab Sunday evening from a report alleging that Clinton once asked in 2010 during a State Department briefing, “Can’t we just drone this guy?” She supposedly asked this when she served as secretary of state.

I would think that a presidential candidate threatening lethal drone strikes in London, and against a foreign embassy, no less, would be concerning. But arguably even more concerning is the possibility that said presidential candidate genuinely can’t remember having done so because she has brain damage.

Mailvox: why he must vote for Donald Trump

Someone with the propitious name of “Del Cid” sent me this today:

I am voting for Donald Trump this November 48, 2016.

Whether any of the innumerable slings and arrows directed at Trump’s person and politics recently have any basis in fact or not, in the end it matters quite little to me.  This election, I am not so much voting for the individual as I am voting for what he inherently represents.

As so many wrongly assume, just because I vote for Trump does not necessarily require that I admire every aspect of him personally.  Nor does it mean I condone every action he has committed, decision he has made, policy he has endorsed, or word he has spoken.  As common sense as this may sound to some, it has tripped up enough people I have spoken to lately that sadly I feel I must make this clarification.

So why am I voting for Donald Trump?

In part I am voting for Trump because the only viable alternative, Hillary Clinton, is far worse than Trump on almost every conceivable level. At the very least, I will vote strategically for Trump in order to deny Hillary the Presidency and to prevent the catastrophe that such a result would undoubtedly bring upon our nation and possibly even the rest of the world.

However, ultimately I will vote for Trump because no matter the specifics of what actions he may take or what stances he may adopt as President, the one thing he is guaranteed to do is shake the Establishment currently embedded in our nation’s government to its very core.  Given his track record so far as only just a Presidential nominee, one has to admit this to be true, just as one must equally admit that our government has fallen into a dangerous rut and must be shaken out of it.

Hillary could never do that, she is too much a part of said Establishment to bring any meaningful, productive change no matter how flowery and polished her scripts and talking points are.  Best case scenario, Hillary as President would only carry on the current status quo and our government, and nation, will continue to devolve into chaos and eventual self-destruction.

In contrast, Trump as President will likely result in one of two situations:

  1. He breaks the mold adhered to by almost every newly made President for the last several generations and actually acts on his campaign promises; thus making some much needed positive changes to our government and our national/international policies.  True, no one is perfect and he may and probably will make some bad decisions or changes to be sure.  But overall, his Presidency will be a net positive and with his help our nation will thrive and flourish and begin to find its way back to the right track. 
  2. He makes some truly terrible changes, declares himself God-Emperor of America, and drives us all to hell in a handcart.  If this is the path his presidency takes, then he will undoubtedly gather so much hatred and opposition from enough of us true blooded Americans that We the People will finally be galvanized into performing our full civic duty and actually do something ourselves to fix our nation and “Make America Great Again.”

Obviously possibility 1 is best case scenario, and 2 is worst case scenario.  Call me a flaming optimist, but I feel that possibility 1” is the most likely outcome.  As with all relatively sane individuals, I generally prefer orderly, intellectual revolutions to chaotic, violent ones.  However, history has repeatedly and unfailingly demonstrated that if the former is so continuously and brutally repressed, the latter will occur eventually.

Either way, change must happen.  Change will happen.  Real and fundamental change.

Which of our two candidates this election season are more suited to acting as a catalyst for positive change, short or long term?  The old bureaucrat so highly experienced in the game of political corruption that even her scandals have scandals?  The woman so inextricably tied to the rot at the core of our political machinery that she is the veritable posterchild (postergranny?) of all things wrong with our government today?  Or the loud, brash, polarizing man who drives the chattel of PC media elites, SJW thought police, cuckservatives, et all before him like so many helpless leaves before the hurricane?  The one candidate who has already begun the breaking of the Present World Order without even yet having stepped foot in the White House?

I look at it all like this:  It is a cold, hard fact that you will never in your life be given the choice of a Presidential candidate who will completely satisfy all of your moral and political standards.  Yet at the same time neither you nor your nation can afford for you to stand by, shun your civic duty, and remove yourself from the decision for the purpose of virtue signaling your moral superiority.  Other than arguably making you look good, what real good does this accomplish for the world?  You must choose the best you can out of what options you have been given, and make the most you can out of the reality with which you are faced.

I have studied my options carefully this election season.  Given the choices reality has set out before me, I can only conscientiously fulfill my civic duty as an American citizen by choosing Donald Trump for my next President.

The price of badthink

Scott Adams said that he used to be scheduled to do at least two speaking engagements per month. Since he’s been talking about Trump, he has not received one request. And one scheduled for next year, was canceled as “they are going in a different direction”.

It’s no wonder the Left has been winning the cultural war. The Left is very good about supporting its cultural leaders. Castalia readers aside – they have been reliably great in this regard – far too much of the Right would rather back a Left-approved winner than support any of its own. Of course, I’m guessing that very little of that speaking engagement money came from anyone who was spending his own money, and most of it came from SJWs who managed to put themselves in position to spend someone else’s.

If you were at the Big Fork meeting last night, please note that this is the right time to get involved and start supporting it. You’ve got the Paypal address already; we’ll get a button on the relevant page by Monday. We will continue to do it on a shoestring; we’re comfortable with that. But the more people who start using it, the more server resources we’ll require.

And for those ready to start making some noise next Monday, there is more than one way to do that. (These are not the OG shirts, they’re being prepared, so hold off on those as you’ll all be emailed about them. And it’s not the only Crypto-Fashion now available.