One of our local freeways got tangled up last night because of a snow drift in southern California. Well, a drift of snowflakes, the oh-so precious kind. As part of their continuing war on democracy and the Republic, bands of leftist "protestors" (thugs, really, and probably many of them paid) decided to hold demonstrations of disgust for the election of Donald Trump. They did this, of course, with threats of violence, violence, vandalism, and a general disrespect for the rights of others, especially of working people trying to go on with their lives. These precious snowflakes can't stand the thought of somebody else getting the trophy they were promised, the trophy to which they were entitled. So we see gangs out demonstrating against President-elect Trump and presumably in favor of Hillary Clinton.
They, I guess, want the election canceled and the presidency given to Clinton; their wishes count more than our votes. Young unemployed thugs out rioting in favor of a 69-year-old grandmother who is in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and is one of the most corrupt and lawless candidates ever to appear on the American scene . . . ah, the Democrat Party, the party of progress . . .
The media, most of it, continue to show signs of very serious mental derangement. They have long been a danger to others, but now seem increasingly a danger to themselves. You don't need me to link to the stories, but check out the TV networks, much of cable, NYT, LAT, HuffPo, WashPo, and not to mention many of the foreign media who take their cue from the aforementioned beacons of progressive wisdom, and you will see ever increasing signs of suicidal behavior. They seem akin to those senior Japanese military who could not believe nor contemplate an American victory in 1945. They certainly need to have their second amendment rights curtailed, for their own good. No knives, either.
I am enjoying this, very much.
Dear Diplomad:
ReplyDeleteGo to this website--www.greatagain.gov--to find the online application for joining the Trump administration. I hope you do! They will need all the help they can get at State and on the NSC.
The media is briefly shell-shocked, and also occupied working up the spin that they weren't really wrong, but that will pass soon enough, and the next phase is much more troubling. From here the media will do into full-blown Trump derangement, where they will cherry-pick, misrepresent and if necessary tell outright lies in what will a relentless campaign of dishonesty designed to frustrate and destroy Trump and anything that he tries to do. The so-called experts who has just been spectacularly wrong, yet again, will now lecture and hector everyone with their expert opinion about it will surely be a disaster and end in tears and ruin.
ReplyDeleteA majority of the MSM have no introspection, no capacity to face let alone admit their incompetence, dishonesty and lack of journalistic ethics and standards. They are is disgrace to themselves and to a democratic society.
Isn't it interesting how, immediately after an election that was won because Trump figured out how to go around the MSM and reach the people, the problem of the MSM looms once again. They are promoting the riots, though I have no doubt the riots are paid for by Soros and others. Actually, the MSM is largely owned by the same globalist interests that are promoting riots.
DeleteWhat to do? I saw on Reuters that Breitbart is starting a Breitbart France and a Breitbart Germany. That's good. I hope that during his presidency, Trump will continue a form of his excellent campaign website, which offered press releases that were in many cases great journalism about economic and other issues. We need an ordinary TV channel, not cable, because it needs to be free, that offers strong, honest reporting, and deep investigative journalism. Sharyl Attkisson has been building a small news operation that broadcasts a Sunday news show on a few dozen stations around the country. Could someone with vision and deep pockets go to her and expand her effort?
Re stopping them from hurting themselves??
ReplyDeleteFRAK THAT
I actively hoping some of these useless Eloi and wastes of DNA blow their brains out on camera; or fling themselves to their doom, ideally wearing a GoPro for good HD footage that's impact-proof.
Mercy for these??
Not A FRAKKING chance
We do seem to have a bumper crop of intellectually disarmed people with insufficient understanding of civics USA-style. Where is Retief when you need him?
ReplyDeleteThey are doing this in Portland as well. On social media I see the argument to abolish the Electoral College. The reason being is that Hillary won the popular vote, and therefore should have one. The Prager University video explaining why there is a need for an Electoral College is met with doesn't matter my vote was suppressed by that antiquated document also know as the Constitution. So you see they is no winning with them. They are going to escalate until stronger police measures are applied and discourages such behavior or some new shiny crops up and distracts them.
ReplyDeleteThere are good reasons why an electoral college system is much better than a popular vote system for electing in the President.
DeleteIn addition, this point needs to be made clearly, often, and immediately: if we had had a popular vote system, then the numbers this week would have been entirely different. There is no guarantee that the Hillarybot would have had a majority of the popular vote. As a matter of fact, once everything is counted, she might not have it now.
If we had a popular vote system, there would be an incentive for campaigns and voters to run up the totals. Every voter, even in deep red and deep blue states, would feel compelled to vote. What would our totals have been if every Trump supporter in Texas had felt compelled to vote on Tuesday? Pointing to the popular vote after an election held on an electoral college basis is nonsensical.
There is a problem with the current system, and I am not sure what the fix is (no, I don't want to get rid of the higher power that small states have in the Electoral College - it just saved another election).
DeleteBasically, turnout has been going way up in battleground states, and going way down everywhere else (which makes sense - why would a party spend resources to get their voters to the polls in a "safe" state?).
You can read about this here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442059/dont-blame-clinton-trump-2016-wouldve-beaten-obama-2012
Basically, Trump got 60 million votes and Obama (in 2012) 65 million (rounder). Comparing the vote totals state by state, Trump would have "beaten" Obama (obviously not a valid conclusion), while losing the popular vote by 5 million, simply by running up his vote totals in the important states.
There is nothing "wrong" with that obviously - those are the rules, but a system where residents of some states have more attention paid to them / incentive to vote / power just feels less than ideal to me.
We could start by overturning Reynolds vs Sims. Google it. That's why one or two big blue metrosexual cities are able to run whole states like satrapies.
DeleteWhile we're at it, let's get rid of gerrymandering *and* make the electoral vote count at the local level by pushing everything down to the counties. No more arcane 'congressional districts', and no more New York City harvesting the electoral votes from an unhappy mostly-red New York state by fiat.
How soon we forget back in 2012 when those thousands of distraught Mormon missionary kids burned Salt Lake City to the ground.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. When did GOP voters riot, or call for assassinations, following a Democratic victory?
DeleteFurther, seeing how the whinies at prestigious universities are allowed to skip exams because they're so "distraught" has made me decide that I will never again vote for an Ivy League graduate born after the year 1985.
Uncle Kepha
Vote for? How about refuse to hire? If they are already employed and proven to be productive then by all means keep them.
DeleteI think they're most angry at being called out on not really much liking their candidate anyways.
ReplyDelete- reader #1482
Enjoying this also.
ReplyDeleteMore of the Progressives Voter Outreach program.
ReplyDeleteJames the Lesser
Watching the progressives try to disentangle themselves from their own rhetoric is always amusing.
ReplyDeleteObummer's legacy -- Cuban cigars ...
ReplyDeleteSteve Sailer asks a wonderful question about snowflakey celebrities. Why is their purported destination always Canada rather than Mexico?
ReplyDeleteRaaaaacist!
DeleteI have to give credit to Michael Moore. He said in June that Trump would win by capturing Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin - not even needing Florida. Of course, his views were dismissed by everyone (I can't stand him, but he did understand the mood of the voters in that area of the country). That would have been absolutely EPIC to watch, by the way - Trump losing Florida, being completely written off ("no path to 270 for him now"), and then storming back by sweeping the aforementioned states (hard to improve on what actually transpired - including Hillary winning the popular vote, but that would have done it).
ReplyDeleteNate Silver also deserves some praise (haven't always been a fan of his). He took a lot of heat for his forecasts that said Trump had a reasonable chance to win, and spent much of the last week publicly slamming idiocies such as this ("98.4 percent chance that Hillary wins"):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
His final estimate ("29 percent chance that Trump wins") was not bad at all, given the errors in the polls (particularly in certain states) that he had to work with.
Extra credit for pointing out in advance the structural advantage that Trump had in the electoral college. He had written that if Hillary won the popular vote by 0-1 percent, she would win the election only 25 percent of the time (and only 59 percent of the time if she won the popular vote by 1-2 percent). His analysis was spot on - the data he had wasn't.
My wife made a great point. Claims are being made that Trump spent half what Clinton did. I suspect that's overblown, as I really doubt Trump even spent 1/4. This was referenced as a 'bad thing' prior to the election, but what it really is, is a huge positive for Trump.
ReplyDeleteDo we want a President who spent 2, or 4 times more than her opponent and lost to be in charge of negotiating budgets and trade agreements?
Or do we want the guy who spent almost nothing and got himself elected?
Sure, there will be those who claim he's a con, and that he won through smoke and mirrors. But if the smoke and mirrors are really so effective that he captured the Presidency, why wouldn't they be able to rectify budgets and trade deals as well?
here's hoping they reel you back out of retirement... :) Yeah, I know, it's a horrible thing to wish upon a person, but by simply keeping this blog up, you've nearly volunteered already! :)
- reader #1482
pardon my spam here:
ReplyDelete249660bcee853b27c7eecdaaa0891472c232ae8d
my3names+doggie-names, all lower, no separators, names ordered alphabetically, sha1sum'ed.
can't repro my old sha1.. so redo'ing here (cryptographically allows me to prove my identity at a later time without endangering my wife and young kids by having my unpopular political views linked to them right now, fwiw)
- reader #1482
As I was trimming bushes (some of us have jobs plus homes to maintain) the thought struck me: Now that we've seen how the crybullies behave when they lose an election, just imagine how these people would have behaved after a Hillary win. Remember, Hillary would have completely backed these people.
ReplyDelete-Blake
So...the people that demanded Trump accept the results of the election are now refusing to accept the results of the election.
ReplyDeleteWhen will Hillary make a statement on how horrified she is at the actions of her supporters.