The Bully Party
I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.
If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.
If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.
if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.
On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.
We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.
We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.
Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)
Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.
Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.
I’ll say that again.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.
Intentionally.
As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.
I hope you have too. Therefore...
I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms.
I don’t defend Trump’s personal life. Neither Trump nor Clinton are role models for our children. Let’s call that a tie, at worst.
The bullies are welcome to drown in their own bile while those of us who want a better world do what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years: Work to make it better while others complain about how we’re doing it.
Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless "something changed."
#2
See how easy it is? We've moved from shooting our feet to blowin our head off. The good news is the last one standing won't be a RINO, lonely yes, but Pearl-shine pure, a purity us its own reward.
Video evidence that the electronic vote machines change "republican" to "democrat" -- note, this video evidence is from the LAST election not this one (and the republican won anyway). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN99yddAg5o
A company that supplies 50% of US voting machines ALSO donates to the Clinton Campaign: conflict of interest https://i.redd.it/p0ptpebjwntx.jpg
Hillary Clinton's campaign subcontractors bragging of how they drive voters around from polling place to polling place to vote multiple times. Scott Foval has been sacked since this was released. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
The Motor Voter Act has caused disorder in the rolls with fraudulent applications - as long ago as 2001, evidence was given to Government of this problem such as here by John Samples, then the Director of the Center for Representative Government at The Cato Institute
(from 2001) http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/motor-voter-act-voter-fraud
American History PhD Betsy McCaughey tries to cite evidence for widespread voter fraud on CNN. "Stop or I'm going to have to cut this interview short" says host Carol Costello. "You don't want people to hear the evidence?" No. Host says she gives people all the evidence they need and they trust her. The Panel shouts Betsy down and the host threatens to cut her off. Her points were: - 1/8 voter registrations is either a dead person, a duplicate or an illegal voter
- the NYC election commissioner Alan Schulkin said there was widespread voter fraud in New York City and was told to shut up by Mayor Di Blasio
- Co-operative Congressional Research Report says 2% to 5% of illegal voters do vote
[The Hill] Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday evening accused Fox News' Megyn Kelly of being "fascinated with sex" after she asked about the women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.
In a contentious segment on Kelly's show, Gingrich, a top Trump adviser and surrogate, batted down questions about Trump's accusers and about a tape that showed the GOP nominee bragging about kissing and grabbing women without their consent.
"I am sick and tired of people like you using that language. That is inflammatory, that is not true," Gingrich said, pointing his finger at the camera after Kelly used the term "sexual predator" to describe the allegations.
"When you use those words, you take a position, and it is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn," Gingrich said.
Kelly shot back: "I think your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir."
She continued: "Let me make my point ... If Mr. Trump is a sexual predator, then it is a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump saying himself he likes to grab women by their genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. And then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it."
Gingrich continued to argue that the media focuses too much on the recent Trump scandal while largely ignoring WikiLeaks' release of emails from the Clinton campaign.
"You are fascinated with sex and you don't care about public policy," Gingrich said.
"Me, really?" Kelly asked.
"That's what I get out of watching you tonight," Gingrich said.
She retorted: "You know what, Mr. Speaker? I am not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office."
#4
She is another Katie Couric. People should not do interviews with a corrupt media. That includes the likes of Kelly at Fox. It is the same as asking someone to sucker punch you as hard as they can.
#7
Sexual misconduct allegations against one of the candidates in a presidential election is a legitimate news story. That's not to say the recent revelations of the Clinton corruption isn't. Gingrich was correct that news coverage overall shows both laziness and bias but he totally went into deflection mode. Not surprising really, Newt has always been a phony fuck. The only difference is now he's reeaallly hoping for a cabinat position.
Sexual misconduct allegations against one of the candidates in a presidential election is a legitimate news story.
Except these "allegations" are transparently false. It's not like Trump has been a recluse with no assets up until this moment -- he'd have been a gold mine for these women at any moment. The timing, and the choice of venues, speaks volumes to their credibility. They have none.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/26/2016 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"You know what, Mr. Speaker? I am not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office."
That is reality-defying. Fascinated by the protection of women? An election is not only about the vaginistas.
#11
The funny thing is, Trump spoke like a pig but he did so in private. Nobody was actually hurt by his banter. His actions, if true, never got to the point that anyone went public about it until the final weeks of an election after contacted by Gloria Alred so they couldn't be that bad.
Would it be better to have a non-vulgar candidate, yes. But seriously, this is so transparent its sad.
#14
I think lots of people speak a bit more plainly in private. I don't hold it against him. Trying to impress that Bush thing he was talking to however, well that's just sad.
#17
All journalists are fascinated by sex. It sells more newspapers than anything else. It raises ratings more than anything else. That being said, responsible journalists should avoid bias and smut. Further, I think of a sexual predator as a rapist and/or child molester who may even be capable of murder or kidnapping to facilitate or hide the crime and who is unable under any circumstances to control himself and belongs in jail, kinda like that Arab in Austria who claimed he had a "sexual emergency". (BTW, I never heard where that Arab-colonist-sexual-emergency-boy-rapist-child-molester received any coverage by any of the major news networks most likely because of his protected status as a Muslim immigrantcolonist.) The term sexual predator is far more inflammatory than Trump deserves based on any of the accusations we've heard. It is indicative of bias, pandering to prurient interests and yellow journalism of the worst kind. Together with her opening attack on Trump in the first of the primary debates it puts Megyn Kelly in the same category as the yellow journalists who work for ABCNBCCBSCNN. She has compromised her integrity and her credibility.
Gingrich did a great job of calling her on it.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/26/2016 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Together with her opening attack on Trump in the first of the primary debates...
Kelly's attack question was; ...how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who's likely to be the Democratic nominee, that your not part of the war on women.
Looking back, her question was almost...prescient. Except for the fact it was so obvious that if Trump got the nomination his past comments would be used against him. Had he answered with even the tiniest slice of humility instead of cocking off like a Brooklyn wise guy he might have been better off for the predictable October slime.
#21
Gingrich the adulterer, defending Trump? Then accusing a reporter of being obsessed with sex? Anyone looking at this neutrall is agape with amazement at how BAD Gingrich looks - and by extention, Trump.
The GOP had self destructed. Thanks Trump. Signed, Every Progressive in the US.
You Trump koolaide drinkers keep on drinking. You're doing a great job of electing Hillary.
The rest of us are going to start digging shelters and laying in supplies. Thanks a lot.
#22
Jolu,
Name that Rep candidate, he brought a pea shooter to a gun fight, and lost to Trump. At one time guys like you said any of the 17 would be better than Clinton. While you and Rubio are digging your shelter stay out of the way of the the movement that some day brings Washington back to the Common Man.
[Lifezette] Armed with this false premise, U.S. foreign policymakers on both sides of the aisle made a serious of disastrous blunders.
"We should be more than worried. Neither America nor the world can afford a lurch into Trumpian isolationism," wrote Philip Stevens in the Financial Times on Sept. 21.
Everyone from The New York Times to Hillary Clinton herself touted the letter signed by 50 former GOP officials in August, stating their opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Among other things, the group contended that Trump has little knowledge regarding America’s "vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values" that should undergird our foreign policy.
There is no end to their handwringing and alarmism over the supposed damage a President Trump would do to the United States. The so-called "mainstream" press -- which WikiLeaks has revealed to be little more than a Hillary super PAC -- is full of stories about how Trump presents a threat to the "world order" that has purportedly governed foreign affairs since the end of World War II. But the truth is that the "world order" in question exists only in the minds of those pundits who aren’t paying attention to life on this planet.
The entire concept of a continuous, stable, and peaceful "world order" that goes back to 1945 would come as a shock to the many Americans who lost friends and loved ones on battlefields in Korea, Vietnam, and countless other places during that period. The reality of the situation is that between 1945 and 1990, the United States faced very severe challenges -- not only to any type of "world order," but to its very freedom. Some presidents -- like Reagan and Eisenhower -- dealt with those challenges successfully, helping Americans to enjoy brief periods of peace and prosperity. Others -- like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter -- failed to meet the foreign policy challenges of their time, and left a more dangerous world to their successors. The whole notion that the world simply ran on autopilot, and that U.S. policymakers had few critical decisions to make, is simply wrong.
They believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would promote better relations in North America, and reduce concerns over illegal immigration. They were wrong.
Instead, illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States surged, while relations between all three NAFTA countries have generally deteriorated. By 2008, even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were calling for NAFTA to be re-negotiated -- but of course, that was just another empty promise.
They believed that the World Trade Organization (WTO) would serve as a bastion of support for market economies, and would encourage countries like Japan to give up their mercantilist practices. They were wrong.
They believed that the World Trade Organization (WTO) would serve as a bastion of support for market economies, and would encourage countries like Japan to give up their mercantilist practices. They were wrong.
They believed that a weakened Russia could do little to challenge the West. They were wrong.
They believed that spreading democracy in the Middle East would lead to more stable and peaceful governments in that part of the world. They were wrong.
They believed that cramming most of the historic nations of Europe into a single union with a shared currency would lead to peace and prosperity. They were wrong.
They believed that Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, was a force of calm and stability within the Western alliance. They were wrong.
They believed that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton -- a donor-controlled hack who may be the least persuasive person ever to hold high public office in this country -- could help resolve the significant foreign policy problems that were already becoming obvious by 2009. Instead, she failed at that job, and the world is now less stable and more dangerous than when she went to Foggy Bottom.
In short, by almost any measure, the United States is weaker than it was during the afterglow of the Cold War -- while China, our chief geopolitical adversary, has gotten much stronger. This decline was not inevitable -- certainly no major U.S. policymakers predicted it. Instead, it is the result of a series of foolish mistakes that have consistently undermined our position while making life easier for our enemies.
At this point, it should be obvious that the "world order" for which our elites pine has gone the way of the flip phone and other artifacts from the 1990s. For most Americans, the global economy has become a nightmare from which they are trying to escape. Read the entire article by Laura Ingraham. Worth the read. A good summary of the globalists policy disasters that let the U.S. down the path to where we are today.
#1
How about the globalists who promoted China's integration into the world market. How has that stabilized relations in East Asia? Made them wealthy at the expense of the American working class (who you still call upon to give up their sons to die for your power) and created a strategic threat intent on 'Making China Great Again' with territorial ambitions.
#2
The eyesight and editing skills suffer with age. A good summary of the globalistsglobalists' policy disasters that letled the U.S. down the path to where we are today.
P2K, Ingraham does "allude" to Washington granting China "most favored nation" status. We'd better watch out or we will get the TTP. The treaty does not seem to be available to read much like ObamaCare--you have to pass it to read it. It cannot be good for American industry and workers judging from past deals. IMO Trump is right about this.
#3
Trump should specify when he says "Make America Great again" me means to the point when the wall fell, before the Bush's, Clinton's, and Obama's fumbled the hard won victory and made the world worse and themselves super-wealthy.
He's hinted at that but not been specific enough so that the left has tried to paint America Great again is some idiotic return to slavery.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
