Tag: politics

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.

Why Trump passed up the kill shots

Judgybitch explains how Donald Trump avoided the minefield of defeating Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate:

He understands he can’t win a fight with a woman, and certainly not with a woman who signals her femininity as strongly as Clinton did last night. Trump has some massive strikes left in his arsenal. Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation. Her private server. Immigration. The Second Amendment. Death Taxes. Bill’s rape roster. Big strikes. If and when he pulls them, he is risking the paradox of fighting with women. Nailing her to the wall can backfire on him badly, because many people simply cannot stomach seeing a woman take a massive punch from a man. No matter how much she begs for it. No matter how justified. For many people, you simply don’t hit women.

Trump is walking a fine line, and he is taking his cues, it appears, from Hillary, which is the smart thing to do. He stood on the debate stage, and let her walk up to him. He’s the alpha, she’s the supplicant. That was perfect. He is very gently laying on a spanking, but only with her consent, and again, that’s exactly how you do it. I’m not an advocate of spanking children ever, but grown women are another story altogether. She may not know she needs it, but she probably does.

As long as Hillary never seems staggered by Trump’s blows, he can hit her. The minute the public perceives that he is actually hurting her, he loses. She gains the pity vote. Trump looks like a bully. A few whiny feminists insist he is a bully, because anyone who disagrees with a woman is a bully, period. But average people are watching to see if Trump can constrain himself and not lose it and just beat the crap out of her. If Trump were up against Bernie Sanders, it would be no holds barred, but he can’t do that with Hillary.

Trump won, because he spanked Hillary just enough to let her know her place, but not so hard he triggered the latent white knight in undecided viewers.

As irritating as this is, Judgybitch is probably right to advise restraint. While most of the readers here would like to see Trump unleash on Clinton and trigger her into collapsing in convulsions on stage, the fact is any such action might well render him unelectable in the eyes of most women and more than a few men.

Beyond tone deaf

Seriously, who is advising Hillary Clinton? It’s like a parody of a presidential campaign:

Hillary Clinton trolled two White House opponents with a single response, dinging Gary Johnson and Donald Trump by naming Angela Merkel as her favorite world leader.

The Democratic presidential nominee on Thursday joined the discussion about politicians’ favorite world leaders, a topic that went viral when Johnson, the Libertarian nominee, drew a blank when asked Wednesday to name a world leader he looks up to and respects.

“Oh, let me think. Look, I like a lot of the world leaders,” Clinton said, bursting into laughter initially when asked about her favorite world leader during a gaggle with reporters aboard her campaign plane in Chicago. “One of my favorites is Angela Merkel because I think she’s been an extraordinary, strong leader during difficult times in Europe, which has obvious implications for the rest of the world and, most particularly, our country.”

Clinton praised the German chancellor’s “leadership and steadiness on the Euro crisis,” while adding that “her bravery in the face of the refugee crisis is something that I am impressed by.”

Hillary might as well have promised that she’ll import 2 million Syrian refugees next year. Merkel is HATED in Germany to such an extent that I’ll be surprised if she even tries to remain as the CDU party leader in the next election cycle.

The thing is, Hillary is a nanny-state Mutti Merkel-style politician. Trump is more in the mode of Putin and Duterte. The former is a globalist who has lost half her historical support. The latter are nationalists who are both extremely popular in their countries.

That’s why the Trumpslide is inevitable.

A warning shot

Mike Cernovich Verified account ‏@Cernovich


Sick Hillary’s people fired warning shot at me. ALL accounts (multiple banks) simultaneously frozen. Had to talk to “senior operations.”


Speaking of warning shots, didn’t the Alt-White just declare war on Milo yesterday? The FBI determined that a “credible threat” was made against him today.

A credible threat to MILO’s event and Florida Atlantic University students has forced the cancellation of the Breitbart editor’s scheduled talk today.

According to the FAU Police Department, student organizers received a communication threatening to bring firearms to the talk or plant explosives at the venue.

Threats were also made to FAU students.

The threat was relayed to the F.B.I, which after investigation deemed it to be credible. The F.B.I. contacted Florida Atlantic University this morning recommending cancellation of the event and the university took the decision to pull MILO’s event.

MILO was due to give a lecture this evening entitled, “How Feminism Hurts Women.”

It is not clear who is responsible for the threat.

The timing doesn’t necessarily indicate that it was anyone connected with Mr. Anglin, however, given that Milo has been dealing with bomb threats since the first one was telephoned into the venue of GGinDC more than a year ago.

The petty evil of William F. Buckley

Anonymous Conservative exposes the thought policeman of the conservative establishment to have been a malignant narcissist:

Jonah Goldberg recently said it was time to John Birch the Alt-right. Good luck with that, numbnuts, as an economic apocalypse approaches and the nation finds itself overrun with your Establishment-approved, religion-of-peace amigos. You’ll be lucky to one day escape the mob that is coming yourself. I look on this piece as my get out of jail free card, should I ever have the misfortune to be captured in Jonah’s vicinity.

So I am free to discuss things like this openly now. If the Cuckservative Establishment wants to attack the Alt-right, lets take a look at their saintly standard bearer through the lens of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Our source material will be the piece written by his son in the New York Times. At the time I read it, I was repulsed by what appears to be a case of pretty severe Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Here I will explain why, after quotes from the article.

First is the picture of him. Notice how despite his youth, you can still see the glassy, disconnected eyes. And the sneer of contempt, almost to the point of a growl with an upcurled lip, which is manifest on the left side of his face, and masked on the right side. That facial asymmetry always seems to hold when I see something aberrant. Faces are handed, and the left side almost never hides the demons within as well as the right.

Now the article.

Pup’s self-medicating was, I’d venture, a chemical extension of the control he asserted over every other aspect of his life. The term “control freak” is pejorative. Put it this way: Few great men — and I use the term precisely, for Pup was a great man — do not assert total control over their domains…


He was invariably the sunniest and most pleasant creature in the room. The moods of those in attendance upon him — Mum’s, mainly — did not always match his.


A TV remote control in the hands of an autocrat of the entertainment room becomes a “Star Trek” phaser set on stun. He and Mum might be watching “Murder on the Orient Express” with a half-dozen guests when, just as a key plot point was being introduced, suddenly the screen would fill with a documentary on Che Guevara or the Tuareg nomads of the Sahara…


There, the three of us would eat one of Julian the cook’s delicious meals on trays and watch a movie. I say “a movie,” but “movies” would be more accurate, since several minutes in, without bothering to say, “Let’s watch something else,” he’d simply change the channel. One day, when I was out of town and called to check in, Danny reported, with a somewhat-strained chuckle, “We watched parts of five movies last night…”


Once or twice during the convalescence, I became so splutteringly frustrated after the fourth or fifth channel change that I silently stormed out of the room.

I know what Buckley was doing because I have seen this mind in action. That storming out was what Buckley wanted. Think about it. He was watching those shows. Was he not drawn into them? Was his interest alone not piqued to see the climactic resolution unfold? Was his boredom climaxing at the exact moment everyone else’s interest was maximally invested?

The satisfaction he felt when everyone else was enraged at that critical moment was more pleasurable to him than seeing the plot twists revealed…. Buckley was not a great man. He was, like all narcissists, an insecure, mentally damaged coward, elevated to his position by an establishment that saw him as a useful idiot who would happily suppress the most fierce advocates for freedom, from John Birch to Ayn Rand.

I never, ever liked Buckley’s writing. There was always something that was distinctly off about it to me. There was never any depth or substance to it; there is more meat to a single chapter of Sam Huntington than there is in Buckley’s entire oeuvre. His columns never seemed to hit the target, and his novels were meandering and pointless. Yes, he was intelligent and influential, but always in the most shallow and superficial manner. It is not even remotely surprising to me that the establishment he constructed and policed has not long survived his death. In a different situation, he would have been a dictator, and probably have met with much the same fate as a Mussolini.

Read the whole thing. The incident with the boat at Christmas makes it very clear that there was definitely something seriously psychologically wrong with the man. He was basically the real-life version of Ricky Bobby’s father in Talladega Nights, if the father had punched out the waitress and burned down the Applebee’s instead of just mouthing off to her and being thrown out.

AC explains the driving motivation of the intelligent malignant narcissist:  This is the cerebral narcissist’s dream – tangible proof which they can handle in their brain, that everyone else is an idiot, and they are the smart one. It relieves the great insecurity which drives them unrelentingly to try and one-up everyone else.

This is why I don’t worry about to those who can admit that they have failed, admit that they are wrong, and don’t feel the need to inappropriately flaunt their intelligence at all times, but keep a very wary eye on those who are never wrong, always win, and claim even the most abject defeat to be a victory in disguise. They’re not all malignant narcissists, they may only be garden-variety Gamma secret kings, but in no circumstances can any of them be trusted in any way.

Notice how often Christopher Buckley tried to reason with his father, to absolutely no avail. That’s an unwinnable scenario with malignant narcissists, it is the Kobayashi Maru. Don’t argue with them, don’t try to correct them, don’t try to fix things for them, don’t enable them in any way, just keep your distance, keep them out of your life, and leave them to their delusional hellholes.

Trumpslide: 292 and counting

The Trumpslide cometh:

UPI/CVoter state polls: Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in Electoral College

Donald Trump would earn enough votes to win the presidency in the Electoral College based on UPI/CVoter’s state tracking poll released Monday.

Trump would amass 292 votes and Clinton would get 246 with 270 needed to secure the oval office.

But the candidates’ leads are narrow enough — 5 percent or less — in 12 states to classify them as swing states, meaning 156 electoral votes could be up for grabs.

So do the TRUMPSL!DE t-shirts from Dark Lord Designs, by the way. Among others. Meanwhile, Politico reports that the Clinton campaign is in disarray over Florida:


Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters

First Trump-Clinton debate takes

The Democratic line, courtesy of the Cajun Rattlesnake himself, James Carville:

I can’t imagine that after what we saw tonight the needle doesn’t move some.

He was just bad.

I’ve talked to a lot of people that have done a lot of research and these sort of instant things, these dial groups. I think what you hear around this panel is pretty much shared by the research that I’ve seen tonight.

Yeah, she was prepared, she was solid, she did a good job. He just kind of — as he went further into it… He just — the further they went, the worse it got. They almost wanted to throw the towel in after 90 minutes. That’s enough.

The Neocon take, as per Charles Krauthammer:

It was not exactly the knock out fight that we thought. It was a spirited fight. I think in the end it was something like a draw. But I do believe that the draw goes to the challenger in the sense that Trump did not go over the line. And the very fact he could go 90 minutes on the same stage ultimately elevates the challenger, that’s just automatic for any debate of that support.

I think he did allow himself to get very defensive and she exploited that. She kept coming back for things where he wasted a lot of time on taxes, on some of the other issues he felt personally about, and, as a result, he missed a lot of opportunities. She presented herself as she always does. Solid, solid, knows her stuff, not terribly exciting but reliable. I think that is the best she can do. Likable, she couldn’t but that is not something within her reach.

He contained himself in the sense that I don’t think he committed any gaffes but he allowed himself — she could find out something personal about him that would make him down rabbit holes at a time when he had wide openings to go after her on e-mails and other items, and let them go.

The Master Persuader impression, from Scott Adams

Trump only had to solve one problem at the debate: Seem less scary. He did. Think about it. Clinton won the debate on points but looked like a recently turned zombie learning to smile for the first time. Trump was Trump. Tie.

My perspective, which should be largely discounted because, as is my habit, I did not watch a single moment of it. Partly because it’s not worth staying up for, but also because I think I get a better take on the reaction to the debate by not having any personal impression to discount.

My verdict: a minor Trump victory that will not get in the way of the polls continuing to gradually move in his favor towards the predicted Trumpslide. 

This is a testable conclusion. If I am correct, the polls will continue to move modestly Trumpward. A minor Hillary win will arrest the polls at the virtual tie point that was reported pre-debate. A big Hillary win would start gradually reversing them, and a big Trump win would trigger the preference cascade and see Trump rapidly move into an unassailable lead.

The important thing to remember is that the substance of the debate, the actual words, the stuff that the media discusses, is only about one-third of the effect of the debate. Hillary clearly won the words portion thanks to Trump allowing himself to be distracted and failing to take advantage of the numerous openings she gave him. But with the non-verbal aspect, the candidates each had to meet a separate objective. Trump had to appear convincingly presidential and look as he merited being on the stage. Hillary had to appear healthy and sane.

Trump did the former. While Hillary didn’t collapse, go on a coughing jag, or go into full bobblehead mode, words such as “creepy” and “zombie” and “weird”and “Nixon” appeared often enough in reactions to the debate that it is clear she failed the optics element.

Remember, people’s reactions are cemented at distinct and unique moments that vary considerably from one person to the next. I was both mystified and amused by the reactions of some people to my debate with Robert Murphy; I couldn’t relate to their perceptions of either party and I was not only there, I was one of them! So, don’t make the mistake of thinking that it’s even possible to isolate two, or three, or ten factors that will trigger the decision response in a viewer, as it could be a weird smile, a convincing phrase, or a momentary look of confusion that does it.

Peter Grant wasn’t impressed with either candidate’s performance, but noted a substantive distinction between the two:

What did strike me was the contrast between the candidates’ approaches to the rest of the world.  Donald Trump was emphatic about protecting American jobs and our national economy, if necessary by renegotiating international trade agreements, restricting immigration, etc.  Hillary Clinton was much more globalist in orientation, looking to admit more refugees, work together with other nations (whatever that means), and so on.  She basically saw the United States as just one nation among many, whereas Donald Trump saw it as the ‘first among equals’ with the right to put its own interests first.

And Scott Adams’s considered conclusion:

The most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.