Biden Is Back! And More

Some people never change.

That's Slow Joe Biden. Fresh from gropegate, where the left decided they would ignore his extensive history of inappropriate touching, groping and sniffing of women, Biden announced his candidacy. He then did an interview where he again exploited his dead son by crying about his death for all the world to see at a critical campaign moment. For the love of God, Joe, try something new! Anyways, according to the script he should soon whip out the dead wife again too.

As an aside, Joe has issued a new logo that some say is suggestive of someone groping a woman's chest. If you accept that (and there is a little reading into it to see that) there's also a big old stiff dong pointing right at the breast. Nice work, Joe!

In other news, Bernie wants criminals to have the right to vote, like the white supremacist just convicted of killing James Byrd in Texas. Thumbs up to helping those who need it, Bernie!

Elizabeth Warren just stole an idea from some obscure dong-owning candidate of color "DOCOC". He wants to bribe students by forgiving around $400 billion in student loans. Now Fauxcohontas wants the same thing. My question is this: why should taxpayers pay for this? If Walmart screws me, I don't get the city to pay me back... Walmart does. If anyone other than the students should have to pay these loans back, why not the colleges? Hello, Harvard.

And the Democrats held a conference where a cabal of angry women raged against the sexist (and racist-sexist) Democratic machine which is giving all the attention to the white male Democratic candidates. They're ahead in the polls!! Waaaah! It's not fair! And besides, how ever will they reach out to women of color? I'm thinking cross-dressing and black face.

There has been some real hate spilled out at the white boys in the primary so far. I think this is very emblematic of what is going on within the party. It would surprise me if the Democrats don't start bumping off their white boy leaders soon and replacing them with DOCOCs and NOCOCs. ;)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

That's Really How You Think, Huh?

It never fails to shock me how terrible the minds of leftists can be. They are hateful people who prefer spite to success, who need enemies to focus their thoughts, who care not about consistency or principle except as talking points and who use the human virtues as verbal weapons, but never act upon them.

The latest example that boggles the mind is Notre Dame. As we all know, Notre Dame burned down because... well, that's what happens in France, things burn down. But Notre Dame is such an amazing bit of world heritage that the world (most of it at least) prayed for the building and demanded that it be rebuilt. Responding to this, a group of French billionaires started donating money to fix it.

No sooner had they done this than the twisted leftist minds kicked into high gear. They began by complaining that these billionaires, who had given this money out of the goodness of their hearts, were only doing to so get famous. Uh, the two guys they complained about are two of the most famous men in the world. Then they claimed they did this to advertise their brands (luxury fashion brands). Again, everyone knows their brands, and it's not like they conditioned their gifts on someone putting up their logos on the rebuilt building. Finally, they latched onto the most disingenuous idea of all: how wrong it is to donate to fix a building when this money could have been spent on fixing inequality? This is horseship, pure and simple. The act of donation is right or wrong. It is not right or wrong by comparison. You cannot morally criticize the giving to a cause by claiming there are other greater causes. That's not how that works. That is pathetic pet-peevism of the lowest order.

And then things got worse.

See, once the left starts, they can't stop. They really can't help themselves. Their ideology is like a hateful drug which requires greater and greater level of mindless hate to get the same hit out of it. So along came places like Huffpo and Daily Beast, publishing articles from a-holes claiming that Notre Dame should be re-built as a mosque or some non-religious building, "something to piss off the alt-right."

Do you know how outraged these little sh*ts would be if we suggested the same for a destroyed mosque or some Mayan work of art? Hey, let's turn that Mayan temple into a sports bar! They would scream about world heritage and lack of respect until the turned blue and then demand criminal sanctions. Yet, when the object in question is Western or Christian, they think it's funny. And they aren't even joking. I'll bet you that a sizable percentage of these turds actually believe this.

Not coincidentally, while they seem to think it would be great to make a mosque out of this, we were reminded this weekend how Islam is being used around the world as a group of Islamic terrorists killed men, women, and children of all colors in an attack on Christian worshipers and westerners. Honestly, these articles laughing about rebuilding Notre Dame as a mosque are akin to snotty intellectuals writing that we should convert stolen Jewish homes to German history museums. Oh, that wouldn't be funny? Why not Huffers?

I realized a long time ago that there are two human races. There really are. There are those who aspire to be all the things we identify as good and ideal about humanity. Then there are those who say those things, but chose instead to thrive on hate and jealousy.

I will leave you with this little nugget. This weekend, I had the misfortune to meet a new friend my daughter made. This little blonde girl went on a rant about how racist her father was because he's a Trump supporter. She then changed the topic to a basketball game her team has coming up against a black team. About this team she said, without the slightest hint of self-awareness, "I hate playing them. You know how those ghetto types are."

Liberals, ladies and gentlemen. Morlocks, one and all.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mueller Report (Yawn)

Like Obama on being gay, the Democrats have evolved on the Mueller Report.

First, they were sure the Mueller report would prove that Trump is a traitor to the US. Go Mueller!

Then we heard that there would be no indictments. Boo Mueller. So they changed their tune to "The Mueller Report doesn't matter!"

Then Barr gave a briefing on it and said it would take a few days to release. Now they had a new enemy! "Barr is lying about the report! Release it now! Release it now!"

Well, it's been released and it basically says nothing. Most news sites seem to be ignoring it or back-paging it because it says so much nothing. So the Desperates Democrats have switched to: "The proof is in the redactions!"

Ha ha. This is the most painful retreat since Napoleon's retreat from Russia. At some point, you would think they would give up and just try something else. But I guess not. At some point, I'm sure they'll get the redactions undone and they will discover to their horror that the redacted portions are just as useless to them. Indeed, they couldn't be anything else or the Mueller Report conclusions would have been different. But where they're irrational hope...

Oh well.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sigh... Our Retarded Cousins

The idiot brigade is out in full force. Apparently, the Alex Smith crowd believes the fire at Notre Dame was intentionally set.

//shakes head Of course it was.

BUT... was it them Mooslims? They're under your bed! They're under YOUR bed! Or was it Obama trying to destroy religion? He's under your bed too! Maybe it was a secret NWO Military Operation? I saw a black helicopter over Miami at the same time... the same time!

And why should only these 'tards get to play? How about some dipshittery for the left too? Perhaps it was the Pope trying to drum up sympathy for Catholics? Ho ho ho, bad Pope! Maybe it was Trump trying to distract from the heinous crimes in the Mueller Report on the American Holocaust? Bad Trump. Or maybe it was the French government trying to distract from the failures of capitalism?

I'm betting it was Warren Buffett because he was bored. Or aliens.

Who do you think flew to France to set fire to this building? Feel free to confess if it was you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Tax Time

Every year at this time, Uncle Sam takes millions of Americans into the back room, unzips his pants, and taxes them. Good times. Well, this tax seasons the political world is talking about candidate tax returns. I think there is something sick in demanding that candidates release their taxes. Let's discuss.

For some time now, most candidates for President have released their tax returns to be scoured by the public. Trump has refused and the left has been losing their minds. In response, they've tried to pass laws requiring that these be released to qualify for the ballot. Others want to subpoena Trump's taxes. Others are wishfully thinking they can even make it a crime not to surrender them. At the same time, several of the Democratic candidates have released their taxes. Bernie released his today. There was even a Yahoo headline calling these Bernie's "much anticipated tax returns." Anticipated by whom exactly?

Either way, it's clear that the political class wants to see people's taxes, and I think that's sick. Why do I think this is sick? Because I can see no legitimate purpose in it except to smear.

Ask yourself what exactly do you learn about a person from the release of their taxes? The left wants them released because they want to engage in class warfare and Republican candidates are usually quite wealthy. Is that a valid reason though? Should we really force people to release their taxes just so the left can spew envy and spite at wealth over it? Maybe we should make them detail their ancestry too so the KKK has things it can complain about? How about their dietary preferences so we know they aren't secret vegans?

It turns out Bernie Sanders is rich. But so what? We already knew that. He is a typical faux-socialist. Yet, I'll bet his wealth doesn't change a single vote, nor should it. To accept this argument that he should need to release his taxes so we can smear him for his wealth is pure bias. That's unAmerican. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some people care. But that doesn't mean the system should embrace their bias any more than it should allow an investigation into someone's racial ancestry.

Here's another reason that comes up: who knows what we'll find? They might have done something illegal! This is ridiculous! If there's a crime, the IRS will get them. If there isn't, then everything they have done on their taxes is something we the people have deemed acceptable, and the real purpose of the search is simply to look for dirt. We should not make laws premised on the idea of letting people dig for dirt. If there is something illegal, that should matter. If there is a conflict, that should matter. If there is just a desire to go looking for something to use against someone... that's bullsh*t. Why not also demand cameras be places in their bedrooms. Who knows what kinky crap they are doing with their spouses?

So Trump may not be worth as much as his public image says... Obama scored an obscene amount of money from speaking engagements... Bernie's a socialist millionaire... Bill and Hillary Clinton claimed the underwear they donated to Goodwill was worth $4 a pair. All horrible things to someone, but none is illegal, none is different than what millions of other people are doing, and none is our business. The fact we want to smear these people with it does not justify forcing the release of tax information.

It's time we stopped this sick game of gottcha in DC. And this is the first domino we should kick over. There is no legitimate reason to demand a candidate's tax returns and we should not accept "I want to look for dirt" as a justification. It's time we took one small step back from the politics of personal destruction.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Further Thoughts...

Some ponderings...

I'm really amused by this college admission scandal. What's got me amused is the pathetic reaction of the elites who are virtue signalling without the slightest bit of self-awareness. Make no mistake, this is an elitist scandal. This is proof to what us proles already suspected (or knew): (1) the elite cheat to maintain their status and (2) their kids are douchebag morons who would be flippin' burgers if daddy didn't get rich selling mommy's sex tape. Yeah, I don't think Americans have much esteem for our present elites.

Let me also say that I can't particularly blame the parents who did this. They were looking out for their moron kids like any parents would do. So in actuality, I would expect a good deal of sympathy for the accused... but it's not there. Average people seem offended by the elitism of it (I wouldn't go so far as to say "upset" though, as most people seem to accept this is just the tip of the spoils iceberg and they view it as something they can't change). The elites, on the other hand, are virtue signalling like it's the end of life as we know it.

In fact, what I find fascinating is how all these other elites are jumping on this as if they were desperate to prove it wasn't them. But the truth is, it is them. Nothing highlights this more than Dr. Dre, a rapper/producer, who obliviously posted how his daughter got in "without help" without mentioning that he'd donated millions of dollars to her school right before she got in. They even named a building after him. Somehow, he didn't grasp that this made him just as dirty when he posted his tone def tweet. Others who benefited from wealth, fame (selling their looks/bodies mostly) or even preferential admissions all seem just as eager to mock the accused even though they too are just as dirty. What it strikes me as is people who know they are just as guilty piling on the unfortunates in their herd who got gored and mocking them as a form of psychological relief that it wasn't them. I think this tells us that they know they are frauds. Not that they're going to change, but they know.

Other thoughts...

● The dipstick students at Georgetown University have virtue signaled like a boss by voting in favor of adding a $27 school fee to pay for reparations for blacks. Bully for them. Now we know what black "suffering" is worth: $27 per rich snot. This is what happens when idiots get to make decisions.

● Northwest Mutual has run a series of ads with an odd gender subtext. Before you read on, check these out and tell me what you make of them: architect, glum child, narcissist monster. If you answered, angry girls, then you are correct.

The first ad isn't really offensive. It's a woman who gets ignored by her boss and goes out on her own. This could be a feminist message... evil male boss oppresses bright, successful woman! But it could also just be the standard American dream story of wanting to be independent. If that had been the only ad, I never would have noticed either way.

But then you get the next two. First, comes a grumpy little girl who is angry that her rotten parents have taken her on a vacation. How dare they! They strike me as impotent parents and the ad has a whiff of a spoiled child. She is allowed to mope and fester because the vacation isn't good enough until she finally gets what she wants. The message: you better save up to bribe your child huge! An overthink? Perhaps, until the third ad comes along. This guy is working hard. In the middle of it, a total little sh*t of a teenage girl demands to get her way right then and there. Rather than wanting to kill her, as any normal person would do, he oddly suddenly starts thinking of buying her a pool to win her over. ULTRA spoiled... so much so, they needed to tone down her behavior to this: pool girl 2. Now she's just an airhead, and you don't feel the need to kill her anymore, but average people still aren't going to want to reward her with a pool.

Now ask yourself this. If these had been males in the ads, would the behaviors of the children have seemed at all reasonable? I doubt it. A teenage boy demanding a ride and the parents being told to buy him off with a pool honestly would have been a shocking message. So why would Northwest Mutual think this is acceptable with girls? My suspicion is that either the ads were done by feminists who lack the understanding that people don't think whiny girls should get their way, as indeed most feminists don't seem to have a clue how unpleasantly they come across. Alternatively, the ads were written by a misogynist who hates women and just stuck his psyche into these ads, i.e. this is how he see women. It's funny to me that either explanation makes sense equally. So how is it that the views of feminists and the views of misogynists can be so close that we can't really tell who's who?

● Some albino chick "made history" by being the first albino chick on the cover of Vogue. Sigh. First of all, don't flatter yourself, there is nothing "historic" about any cover of Vogue. Secondly, who cares? This idea that something is history because the first black, white, female, albino, flatulent person did it is bullsh*t. The first counts. The rest are just followers.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Join The (Marketing) Movement

It seems that Madison Avenue has figured out (or thinks it has) how to reach Millennials. Millennials are notoriously hard to reach because they're (A) finicky, (B) effort-shy, and (C) confused by their own cynicism. They also have a strange set of beliefs where they don't want to deal with traditional companies, which are seen as evil capitalist environmental exploiters, unless those companies virtue signal, in which case their sins are forgotten, see e.g. Nike and Apple. So how is Madison Avenue reaching these clowns? Bro-Marketing.

What is Bro-Marketing?

You've heard of "Bro-country," right? Two douchebags sing about how they had a party and got drunk in some field with some country girl but also possibly with homoerotic intent. Well, this is different. This is safety in numbers as two gosh darn shy guys reveal how they were forced into opening a company to sell you crap because the way those other guys do it is crazy!

Hi. Me and my buddy Booger like stuff, but when big companies sell it, it's really expensive. We thought that was crazy. So we started our own stuff company. We made our own designs (with production software). Had it manufactured (by sweatshops in China), distributed to over 150 countries (with DHL supply chain management), had pictures of it taken at Burning Man, and built a community. Yep, just the two of us. For you... and our community.

This is the sales pitch: (1) we are normal people who were SHOCKED to find that some product was so big businessy. (2) So we built a new kind of company to make the same product only more virtuously and sell it to you. (3) Act nervous about appearing in the ads. (4) Under no circumstances note that we use big business to handle every link in the production/distribution chain, and (5) mention that you're building a community of people who like the product (a herd mentality sales pitch for the cell phone generation).

I've seen this nearly identical pitch for erectile dysfunction drugs ("Roman" - founded by Chip and his dad the doctor), watches ("Movement" - founded by Booger and Trevor), contact lenses by mail ("Hubble" - founded by Skippy and Flounder), and even a beach clean up company founded by two surfer dudes ("4Ocean" - founded by Bill and Ted). Four identical companies isn't just a trend, it's a sea change.

The sales pitch is the same for each. It is also utterly fraudulent. These are not little companies founded by some random dude and his bromance. These are slickly marketed creations that sell the illusion of a new, more pure way for hipsters to shop without supporting big business, even as big business reaps the profit. Indeed, these people walk a fine line between making it clear that they are NOT a garage band when talking about quality and safety, but then wanting you to believe they are a garage band when it comes to virtue.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Chip and Booger's plans. Frankly, it's brilliant marketing and it seems to zero in directly on what makes the modern consumer tick. And since consumer preference and politics come out the same human orifice, I suspect this is telling us something we should know about politics. In fact, I think it explains both Obama and Trump and can be used to predict who will be future nominees.

Consider this.

1. This pitch is anti-establishment, especially against big business. Both parties have adopted anti-Big Business rhetoric and anti-establishment has been the norm for political figures for some time now, even long-time insiders. Trump and Obama both checked this box.

2. Even more so though, the anti-establishment pitch is tempered with the idea that while they are a business version of a garage band, Chip and Booger are selling you the idea that they are high quality, as if they were establishment. Again, Trump and Obama both hit this. Both sold themselves as outsiders, but at the same time, sold themselves as high-end professionals.

3. The pitch is super-vague on details. So is modern politics. Candidates with detailed messages die. But it's simultaneously very big picture... transformative. Again, Trump had Make America Great and Obama had a post-racial America. Highly transformative.

4. Each of these companies is pushing the idea of a community. That again fits Obama and Trump. You apparently, need to be the leader of a movement, not just a campaign.

5. Now it gets odd. While Booger and friends feign insecurity, both Obama and Trump were overtly arrogant. The current crop of Democrats play insecure. So are they onto something? Is it possible consumers are changing from wanting arrogant leaders to insecure leaders? I don't think so. While Booger is insecure and appears humble in his ads, he really isn't. Each of these guys calls the established world "crazy" and acts like it's nothing for them to build these companies from scratch. I think the arrogance is there, but it's not-well hidden behind a veneer of faux-insecurity. I would guess that the faux-veneer is the new piece to the puzzle.

So what will the best candidates look like? Anti-establishment. Anti-Big Business. High-level credentials outside of running for office. Running on transformative message, but offering no details. Talks about leading a movement, not a campaign. And must be arrogant about abilities to lead, but fake a see-through facade of false modesty that doesn't hide the arrogance too much.

Bernie is too earnest and has no credentials. Warren lacks credentials and is chasing details. Harris isn't competent or arrogant. Yang is lost in the details. Biden is none of the above. Klobuchar has no false modesty or credentials. Hickenlooper and Inslee have no movement. The gay mayor, Buttkiss has no credentials or transformative message. Beto... Beto may have all of this.

I think I'm going to watch to see who molds themselves into Booger.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Oracle of Ohmagod!!

Warren Buffett is an intelligent man. He's also kind of a sh*t at times. I don't respect how he got rich, which relied a lot upon the government. Nor do I think he's all that wise, especially when it comes to politics, where he seems to be out to enrich himself more than improve the country. That said, he just said something I find to be very interesting. He was asked what question he would ask all the presidential candidates. His answer is... interesting. Here it is:

“I would like to ask a candidate: What are you for that majority of your followers are against?”

That's an interesting question to say the least. In this age of armchair hyper-purists and our foaming at the mouth us versus them political class, whose views are essentially "I hate everything the other side wants," this seems to be an invitation to cut your own throat.

In a more intelligent political atmosphere, this would be a fantastic question. Not only would it allow people to assess where their candidates might part ways with them, but it would tell people that being something less than truly pure is normal and acceptable. Too bad we don't live in that world.

I've been wondering though what the Democratic candidates would say if they were forced? Sadly, I think the answer would be something lamely politicized like: "I don't believe that we can help every person" or "I believe we need a different approach to achieve our goals." Wa wa wa waaaaah. Wouldn't it be fun if they had to answer this honestly? I think it would go a little something like this:

Fauxcahontas Warren: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I've actually thought about our beliefs. Scary. As. Sh*t."

Bernie Sanders: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe that race shouldn't matter."

Creepy Joe Biden: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I see chicks and darkies as children who must be cuddled. What? What's wrong with that?"

Andrew Yang: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe stopping circumcision and paying athletes are the issues of our time."

Beto: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I don't believe any of the crap they believe. I believe in my own superior being."

Pete Buttigieg: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I think I'm more than just a gay media crush."

John Hickenlooper: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe my beliefs are those of a Democrat. They should be at least."

Kamala Harris: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... uh... I have no independent beliefs."

Jay Inslee: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I know where Washington State is."

Amy Klobuchar: Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe bullying is effective with staff."

Tim Ryan: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I don't hate white men."

Kirsten Gillibrand: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I've destroyed male Democrats. How's civilian life treatin' you, Al Franken?"

Cory Booker: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe I'm relevant."

Yeah. Probably wouldn't work.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Slow Burn of Slow Joe

Biden is falling apart.

Joe Biden is falling apart as a candidate for 2020. Honestly, I don't think he ever really had a chance, but if he did, it's coming apart now.

Let me back up...

As I've noted many times, the Democratic Party is now the party of single, white (angry) women and (angry) blacks... having driven out the last of the working white men. That said, the women dominate the party. Why? There are 150 million women in the US. Probably 20% of those fall into the group who form the Democratic core. That's 30 million angry, wannabe-oppressed, wannabe-victimed women. I am victim, hear me whine and whine and whine. By comparison, there are 16 million(ish) blacks, but only maybe half will vote. So women outnumber them 4-1. That's power. Moreover, these women, being professionals or married to professionals, donate the bulk of Democratic cash. Their teachers union sisters comprise the vast majority of Democratic delegates and volunteers. That's the muscle that drives the party. So the women have the numbers, control the money, and have the muscle. This gives them the power... and they don't share.

So this cycle more than any prior cycle, the primary will be about appeasing these angry women voters. Biden sucks at that.

Biden has a history of being creepy. He's also prone to gaffes (Bidenisms) and he has no experience in the angry new world that is the Democratic Party, where virtue signalling has replaced policy and certain people are by definition not allowed to virtue signal because their gender/race/age/wealth/boss-hood makes them presumptively an oppressor.

The issue with Biden touching women is a great example of the problem he faces. In the past, the media could be counted on to keep the lunatic attacks buried and to downplay the legitimate ones because he was a Democrat and that meant he was presumed to be virtuous. That's not true anymore though.

With the shift in mentality, Biden is now part of the oppressives. He is a white man and, therefore, his crimes against women will be roundly proclaimed and condemned, and his crime is to come across as creepy. That's the death sentence in the #metoo world of Democratic virtue signaling.

So how does he fix it? He can't. He is forbidden from sympathizing with the oppressed because his gender and race makes him an oppressor. Years of service and prior-blind loyalty count for nothing. So he's doomed.

I don't think Biden has any idea how to handle this, and the more he tries to fix it, the more damage he will cause. Because of this, I think he will find that his 22% support is his ceiling, not his starting point, and I suspect it will be a short, nasty ride from here before he drops out after getting destroyed in the first couple primaries.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What About White Men, Uncle Joe?

Joe "Dipsh*t" Biden is out opening his flap again. He wants to be the Democratic candidate, which would make me immensely happy, so he's trying to court his base -- crazy women and angry blacks. Today was for the girls. He said we need to end "white man's culture" because of domestic violence.

But what is white man's culture? Well, it's the culture that gave us respect for the individual. It gave us science and medicine. It's led to legal protections for minorities and women. It requires rule of law. It cherishes religious freedom and freedom of speech. White man's culture has fed the world... ended killer diseases... brought prosperity to every corner of the world. It ended the ancient tradition of slavery. It regulates workplace safety. It made the air and water clean. He wants to get rid of that? Huh. Ok.

What would he replace it with? He doesn't say. I guess it's up to us to decide.

Well, we could go for ghetto culture... bitch. Then we could settle disputes by busting caps in each other's asses. Yo, look at the drugs I take and the money I make!! And how does ghetto culture deal with women, which was Biden's main issue after all, well, they smack their bitches up. Yo.

I guess we could go Chinese. Mass repression, military dictatorship, rule of law subsumed to politics, censored internet, peasants relocated at a whim, Muslims watched in their own homes, Buddhists under suspicion. Ah, the sweet smell of control. At least women won't face back alley abortions. No, siree. Their abortions will be done in government facilities... whether they want them or not.

How about Africa, where slavery never ended? No? Don't like the rape gangs in South Africa? The murderous government in Zimbabwe? The blood diamond gangs? The tribal butchery in Rwanda? Hmm. Not good.

Islam. Islam is good to women, provided those unclean creatures behave. Shut up and get back in the house, wife number seven. At least they aren't stoned to death like gays and Christians.

How about India? India is good... except for the rape gangs. Pakistan is better, unless you want to educate your daughters, then they get blown up.

Wait, I know. We'll invent a new culture. We'll do what the #metoo movement wanted. Let's see, that was guilt by accusation, no due process, immediate termination of public life and ability to support self. It was nebulously defined crimes premised on the interpretation of victims raised decades after the fact... "he looked at me funny a decade ago." It was rank hypocrisy... elitist... and for rich white women only.

You know, white man's culture isn't sounding so bad.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Jewish Flight?

With the Democrats delving far into the embrace of antisemitism, there is a lot of speculation that Jews might flee the Democratic Party and become Republican. Even the Wall Street Journal ran an article saying that the relationship between Jews and Democrats is "strained." I don't agree. Here are my thoughts.

● In my life, there have been three or four mini-exoduses of Jews leaving the Democratic Party. The first was in the late 1970s, when a group of conservative Jewish intellectuals came over and formed the intellectual core of the conservative movement. There was a mini-exodus in the 1980s when Reagan won over most Americans and the right drove out their antisemites and racists. The next came after religious conservatives decided to embrace Israel as the promised people, and then Bush Sr. went to war in the Middle East. This brought over the more "muscular" parts of American Judaism who understood that Arabs were serious about wanting to wipe them out. The most recent exodus, if it's real, is now and is in response to a growing embrace of Palestinian activists by the Democrats under Obama, the full embrace of antisemitic tropes by OWS, and now the embrace of Muslim victimhood.

The thing is, each of these waves only brought a small number over. About 30% of Jews support Republicans today, up from 5% when I was a kid. But getting any more will be really hard.

● Why aren't Jews likely to switch parties? Several reasons.

● First, they cluster in a handful of liberal enclaves -- New York, California and Florida. Florida Jews are most likely to change parties, but the others live in liberal bubbles.

● Secondly, there is something in Jewish culture that biases Jews toward socialism (ditto on Scandinavians and blacks... it happens). In this case, there is also a synonym between groups like the ADL and the ACLU and many similar advocacy groups and the Jewish community. That reinforces the left-leaning. Moreover, it seems that the more right-wing Jews self-selected to move to Israel, just as non-union whites left West Virginia.

● Third, Jews are sold the idea that flyover country is filled with Jew-hating rednecks. This is "big city think", but it's a strong factor.

● Fourth, and most importantly, Jews fit the demographic of the modern Democratic Party. The Democratic Party consists of two victim groups: single/professional women and blacks. Jewish women largely fall into the demographic of single/professional women. This group runs the Democrats: they are not leaving. So I don't see a real shift, even as the Democrats embrace antisemitism.

● Do Jews matter though? In Florida, kind of. In New York and California, they are lost in the surplus. Basically, there are six million Jews. The leftist surplus in California is four million votes, where there are only 1.1 million Jews. In New York it's around three million votes, where there are 1.7 million Jews. So even if every Jew changes parties, it wouldn't shift California and it might only just matter in New York. It could in theory change a House seat here or there, but those tend to be local and the GOP is nonexistent as an alternative where Jews live. In Florida, there are 600,000 Jews and the state was decided by only 100,000 votes. So they could matter there, but since the GOP is winning, all they would do is make winning easier. They wouldn't shift the state.

● So what does all this mean? It means that Jews are not switching parties and even if they did, they don't matter demographically because of their concentration and where they are concentrated... except Florida, where they could reinforce a trend, but not change it.

● That said, where a shift in Jewish support could matter is in the intellectual prowess of the Democrats and in their fundraising. Jews punch way above their weight in terms of representing the Democrats, running advocacy groups, and forming policy on the left. A shift away from the Democrats because of the rise of antisemitic types could dramatically shift the ideological core of the Democrats away from the more humanist ideas of Jewish thinkers to more intolerant thinking by the antisemites. That could hurt the party with moderates and women. It could also harm Democratic fundraising as Jews punch well above their weight in that too.

● Will Jews be able to rein the Democrats back in from the hate-filled deep-end? I don't think so. The younger you get in the Democratic party, the greater the antisemitism. That suggests a growing divergence in the future. What's more, Democratic elders seem unwilling to push back as hard as their elders did against antisemitism. Silence equals consent.

Also, the numbers are against Jews. There are six million Jews, a number that has been steady in my lifetime. Muslims have gone from nothing to seven million. I expect their numbers to double in the next couple decades. And since I don't think the two groups will be compatible in my lifetime, that means Jews may find themselves squeezed out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mueller Report - Trump Slam Dunk

So the Mueller report is out. Whoops. No proof that Trump colluded with Russia.

● Let me start with this: LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

● Secondly, all those years of Democratic jokes about Trump and Putin now seem kind of slanderous. Think they'll issue an apology? Do you think they'll investigate Hillary's connections to Russia? No, I don't think so either.

● There is great gnashing of teeth today among a certain set. Chris Matthews says the report doesn't matter. He knows Trump is guilty. So much for rule of law and the presumption of innocence he whips out whenever leftists get in trouble. Bill Maher (who claims to be rational and not ideological) also says it doesn't matter. He "doesn't need the Mueller report to know that Trump is a traitor." So much for rational. A number of MSM staffers are probably on suicide watch. Obsession is as obsession does.

● Recent polls showed that more than 50% of the public think the Russia thing has been a witch hunt. This will vindicate their lack of faith in the system and likely solidifies their support of Trump. I suspect this tipped the needle to a re-election victory as it will discredit all the attacks on Trump. This will likely "disprove" all the mud in one fell swoop and give Trump some strong measure of immunity. Trump is calling this "an illegal takedown that failed" and I think that probably fits with a lot of people's mindsets.

On that point, two recent economics-based predictors (who have been right almost always) are predicting a landslide victory for Trump. The Mueller report imploding in the face of the Democrats and the media probably makes that even more likely.

● This shows that Trump's lying former lawyer, Michael Cohen, lied during his testimony before Congress... again. Imagine that.

● As of yesterday, the Democrats were demanding the release of the report because the American people deserved "to know every word, every comma, every period." Today, the are using the report for toilet paper and plan to continue their own "investigations". He's a witch! Burn him!

● I find it funny that Mueller released his report on a Friday night. But not only a Friday night, a Friday night where most of the country is watching the March Madness tournament at its height. It sounds like he wanted this thing to vanish from the news cycle.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Non-Conventional Thoughts

Howdy. I'm hating conventional wisdom.

● You see conventional wisdom in all fields of endeavor from politics to sports to business, and the one thing I can tell you is that it is always wrong. Conventional wisdom seems to be based on the correlation fallacy. When two items appear together, shallow thinkers assume the correlation must mean causation. They spread their "wisdom" to the herd and soon this crap gets elevated to the level of dogma. Good luck getting them to see its flaws then.

● In fact... I had an interesting debate the other day. Stick with me on this. The sport media has this conventional wisdom that "people" don't like James Harden (a basketball player) but love Steph Curry (another basketball player who comes across as smug). This comes from the fact that "experts" don't like the way Harden plays, seeing Curry as pure in talent and Harden as a dive-specialist. I would disagree with both assessments, but that's not the issue. The issue is that they are wrong about which the public likes and I can prove it. How?

Harden has six national ad campaigns. He's on TV all the time everywhere. This is his latest ad and it's hilarious (CLUTCH). Curry has none. He had a Britta ad that ran for a short time a couple years ago and then some black history thing a year ago, but that's about it other than the usual things like Nike. That's really telling for someone with multiple championships (Harden has none). What this tells us is that advertisers know that the public likes Harden, but does not like Curry. How do they know? Because they track sales when they run ads and they look for a response from the public (pro or con). When the public responds, that means that the presence of this person in the ads has swayed the public enough to change the way they spend their money. That's a much more reliable measure of likability than polling because (1) there is no chance of polling bias, i.e. using a misleading question or telling the pollster what they want to hear, because the public doesn't know anyone is listening, and (2) spending money requires commitment to the belief, answering a poll does not -- it's also an indicator of intensity of belief. This means that the continued use of Harden (or Peyton Manning), just like the shunning of Curry (or Tom Brady), tells us what the public really thinks because they are voting with their money.

Nevertheless, a great many people refuse to believe this. They see all the articles attacking Harden and they assume there must be some truth behind it because all those people can't be wrong (the biggest logical fallacy): it's conventional wisdom! What's more, they reject analysis like the appearance in ads I just discussed because it's not conventional thinking to look at evidence like that, i.e. it's not part of the herd-approved logic.

My point is this: the best evidence is never the conventional evidence, because it is conventional because it seems the most simple and obvious to the most simplistic thinkers... thinkers who fail to grasp that it suffers from bias and lack of fitness for purpose. Always look for evidence that is divorced from bias and requires a real commitment. In politics, this means, follow the money. Look how politicians in danger act, not someone safe like AOC. Look for the difference between words and deeds. Look for contrary behaviors, such as someone reading "Fifty Shades of Gray" but claiming to believe in #metoo. If you want to know if something is true, you cannot discover the truth by asking the direct questions. Look for the actions of people when they think no one is looking or when they face potential of loss. Make sense?

● The left is praising New Zealand for trying to ban guns. More conventional wisdom: if A is a problem, ban it and don't worry if it was only a small percentage of A that caused this. Guns are a problem... ban them, even if only a handful of guns become a problem. This makes sense to liberals. It is conventional wisdom on how to solve a problem. But it's stupid. How stupid? Change the object and see: a New Zealander is a problem because he shot up a mosque. To prevent a threat of something similar happening here, we should ban New Zealanders from entering the US. That's the identical logic. Does it make sense?

BTW, lest you think this is gross exaggeration, until a recent spate of mass shootings by blacks and one woman, the left was writing articles saying that guns weren't THE problem... white males were. This type of mis-logic is much more alluring to idiots than you realize because it makes the complex seem simple and it promises easy solutions.

● Here's a fascinating issue of demographics. The left is counting on all those immigrants voting Democrat. That's conventional wisdom. The problem is that Mexico is out of Mexicans, so the immigrants coming now are Chinese. We are up to 3 million Chinese in the US, with more coming. However, the Chinese are closet Republicans in waiting (with an increasing number coming out of the closet). Why? (1) They are a small business community and resent government interference. (2) They embrace traditional values like self-reliance and hard work, and they do not like lazy people, i.e. Democratic voters. (3) They are upset that affirmative action is being used to keep their kids out of colleges in favor of unqualified black kids. (4) They despise abortion because of recent experience with China's abortion policies and they aren't into liberated women, which is the new foundation of the Democratic Party. (5) The older ones fear socialism because they remember the Cultural Revolution. In California, they are starting to become political and they are doing so to stop Democratic plans.

I predict that the Chinese will slowly take over the California GOP over the next decade, and you will see a dramatic shift in Democratic opinion about illegal immigration as a result. I'm also starting to wonder if Jews won't slowly shift parties. Not sure of that yet, but the more Muslim the Democrats become, the more "Jewish flight" will occur. And no one will see this coming because conventional wisdom says: nonwhites vote against Republicans... except Vietnamese and Cubans and Eastern Europeans.

● Bud Light has been running a fun series of ads for a while now about a medieval kingdom. The glitterati who opine conventionally on Super Bowl ads declared these a failure (voted worst Super Bowl ad actually), but the fact they keep running (almost exclusively for Bud) suggests they are a big hit. Anyways, Miller Lite just took a rather nasty shot at Bud in this ad: Angry Ad. I have never seen a more disjointed, mark-missingly poor attack as the Miller Ad. The ad lacks substance, it's unclear what is going on, and it openly feels derogatory, like they wrote it when they were in a pissy mood.

Well... within a couple days, Bud fired back with this brilliant ad: Brilliant. This ad is devastating. It slaps back at Miller as petty and basically accuses Miller of being afraid of the truth, but it does so in a lighthearted and funny way. That's great writing. Pay attention to this folks. This could get good depending on what happens next. Odds are that Miller runs away with its tail between its legs, but if they don't, they are going to make a mess of themselves... they are outclassed and Bud Light has set them up for disgrace.

● Finally, when are the McCain's going to go away? Ug. I have little good to say about their father and far less good to say about his stupid kids whining that people were mean to their rather nasty father.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Couple Thoughts

Busy week! More on the college thing... and aliens.

● This college thing has been interesting. The left is really enjoying being smug about it, without the slightest hint of self-awareness. Make no mistake, this is leftist on leftist crime with the intent of getting around leftist rules.

Julia Roberts this morning whined that the "saddest" part of this scandal is that these parents "didn't believe in their children." Bullship. First of all, as many brilliant kids can tell you (especially Asian kids with above 4.0 GPAs), merit alone is no guarantee that you can get into these liberal schools. Race matters. Gender matters. Pleasing mercurial liberal admissions staff matters... "did your volunteer work make Africa better?" So it makes total sense that some people feel the need to give their kid every advantage they can when they know that the system is rigged against them. And all the whining the left is doing about white privilege can't hide the obvious: admission at liberal colleges is a not about merit, it's about liberal dogma.

Secondly, Julia and other leftists seem to think that there is something wrong with helping your kids. When has "survival of the fittest" ever been so popular on the left? And let's be clear, these kids are morons. That's obvious... probably even to the parents. Merit wasn't even going to get some of them jobs at Taco Bell. So it's no wonder their parents want to help them, and Julia's ninnying just reeks of self-righteousness.

Others on the left have been using this to attack the idea that America is a meritocracy. That's bullship too. First of all, these people cheated the system, you can't use them as evidence of how the system works. Secondly, even though some people get into college unfairly, you can't point to a handful of examples of people who are above the system as a condemnation of the other 99% of the public who are in the system. And let's be clear. The left is trying to pretend that it's rich kids who get in unfairly, i.e. white privilege, but for every rich kid there are a dozen brain-dead athletes (poor and of color) who shouldn't be there either. This is not a "white privilege" issue, it's a race-neutral elitist college priority issue. As yourself why Stanford needs a national championship in football? basketball? rather than trusting actual student athletes. Step away from the elite world where rich kids live off the fame of their parents and where liberal colleges play social engineering with race and gender, and you will find that the vast majority of Americans only get what they earn and what they earn comes from merit. So stuff your criticism... you're looking in the mirror morons.

One of the more interesting aspects of this is seeing the left trying to turn this into a condemnation of the middle class. This was entirely an elitist scandal. Elite parents scamming elite schools to make sure their kids get elite resumes so they can continue their elitist pursuits ("influence blogger"). There's nothing middle class in any of this. One article by a leftist who self-described as "middle class" whined about "middle class privilege." Only this whiner was as far from middle class as you can get. They live in an elite neighborhood in Southern California, went to Harvard, wife went to Yale, and they send their kid to an elite prep school, just like all the other "middle class" people they know. Basically, this is an elitist leftist who lives in an elitist California bubble and thinks the people around him are middle class and is now condemning them for spending money to prepare their kids to get into good schools... as if that was a sin. The left is so not self-aware. Racists condemning racism... except when it's from an important leftist. Sexists condemning sexism... except when it's from their friends. Hateful creatures hatefully condemning others as hatemongers. Elitists pretending to be average condemning each other's crimes as the crimes of the middle class. The left is truly a mess.

● Do I believe there are aliens? I think so. The odds tell me the universe is teeming with life. I doubt they're here, but I think they're out there in some form. But that's not the point. The point is this: if you remove the constraints of logic, reasoning and proof from science, you get the Ancient Astronaut Theory. I've been watching this show lately and it just pisses me off. These guys are total frauds. They judge from ignorance, fall for the craziest interpretations, push aside all reasonable counter-interpretations (often pretending there are no others), consider their imaginative guesses to be fact, ignore all the contrary evidence, and flat out lie. And the result is a ludicrous theory no reasonable person could believe. It's bullship. Even worse, this kind of mis-logic, fraudulent argument and ludicrous self-delusion mirrors what I see on the fringes of politics. It's the exact same thing. And right now, the Democrats are bathing in it.

● What I've seen on the New Zealand shooter suggests that he was influenced by French theories on race... not US theories. of course, that doesn't fit the media narrative that he's a right-wing American racist who did this on Trump's orders. Yawn.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On The College Scandal

Now that we've had time to process, let's talk about the college scandal.

● Having heard now from several of the kids, I can definitely say that they deserve whatever is coming to them. What a bunch of sh*ts. Some threw their parents under the limo. One used this as a marketing opportunity. Several said they never wanted to go to college anyways ("except for the party experience and game day"). One dipsh*t claimed there was nothing wrong with this because "going to college should be a right." A right to go to Standford, huh? A couple are now trying to make themselves victims by worrying about being bullied. We can only hope. Next will come "I'm fat and designers won't fit me" (very popular at the moment) and if they need a big gun "I was raped".

● How dumb must these kids be that these people couldn't get them into school the way rich people always manage with stupid kids: donate money.

● I find it funny how many famous leftists are piling on these people because "they're rich." Uh, so are you. And this is the crap you people get caught doing all the time. This is an elite leftist crime... just like all the bad guys "brought down" by #metoo were elite leftists, all the people faking hate crimes are activist leftists, etc. In fact, every scandal of recent vintage is leftists behaving in the very manners they claim everyone else is behaving, but isn't. And as they dance on their graves, they soothe their tiny corrupt consciences by pretending these weren't leftists and they've never done anything similar.

● I can't quite put my finger on this yet, but this indictment seems to be part of a movement. What movement? I'm not sure. But look at the criminal indictments of late: This, a college cheating scandal involving bribes by rich people to elite colleges. You've got the NCAA basketball bribery scandal going on, which involves elite companies paying elite college coaches to steer their best players to those companies for endorsements. You've got an anti-Asian admission scandal where elite colleges are being sued (and defending themselves with a big old middle finger) for discriminating against Asians. You've got the fake hate crime stuff, which involves lots of leftists (particularly, blacks and gays -- some famous) making false hate crime claims. You've got the rape industry exposed in a series of fake rape allegations at colleges. This relates to the #metoo "movement," which tore up Hollywood and the entertainment-news industry as elite actresses/TV-anchorettes destroyed elite leftist males... and then turned on each other. Women's sports are tearing itself apart too. Women gymnasts have destroyed the Olympic federation and several colleges. Women's soccer is suing itself over discrimination.

There is something here. I can't quite tell what it is yet, but there is a pattern. Right now, my best guess is that leftists have become so irrational about screaming HATE that they have taken to tearing down anything/anyone they can and they just happen to only know leftists. This could be a media witch hunt, which would be why they all seem to be elitists. Perhaps elitists have simply pushed their above-the-law mentality too far? It is also possible that this is about a shrinking economic pie too. The cultural appropriation movement is about economics, I'm almost certain. So what is the pattern? I don't know yet but my spidey senses are tingling. I think we need to watch this more closely.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What I've Been Saying...

Howdy folks! Just a quick thought tonight in this busy week. Lot of kid's medical stuff and we're expecting an apocalyptic snow storm on Wednesday. Good times! Anyways... I've been making the point to you for a long time not to trust that what you see online is real. A handful of people have the ability to create what appears to be a massive public movement. Well, proof of that came up this past week in Britain.

For some time now, the new bride of Prince Harry (Meghan Markle) has been under a withering attack on the Palace's own social media sites. The attacks have been brutal, vile, unrelenting and massive. They have ranged from attacking her looks, her personality, and even spreading a conspiracy theory about her faking her pregnancy.

Well, the Palace did an investigation and discovered that more than 70% of the attacks came from just twenty trolls. Twenty people created this wave of hate so massive that the British media mistook it for a swing in public sentiment. This is exactly what I've been saying. When you see a mass movement of hateful socialists... identity politics trolls... or just whiners slamming everything you hold dear, that's just a handful of idiots in their basements determined to destroy something they despise. It is not indicative of society.

I have looked and looked and looked and I see NO movement in our society or anywhere else that supports the crazies (on either side), that supports the socialists, that accepts the bizarre troll-like dictates of identity politics. They just aren't there. There are a handful of these people, but that's it. In fact, one of the interesting things I've watched is the comment numbers at a place like Yahoo. Yahoo is a wretched hive of scum, villainy and cynical losers, and they love to smear anything and anyone. They spread hate, anger and cynicism everywhere they can. They spew leftist dogma and idiocy. But do you know what? Yahoo lets you thumb comments up and down and these people routinely end up outvoted on the order of 100 to 1. That speaks volumes. Add in what the British found and you hopefully start to see what drives the internet.

You are the majority. These people are freaks. Don't believe that there are more than a tiny number of them.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Crazy Is As Crazy Does

Sometimes, the world is a little nuts (pun intended). Take the billionaire diamond merchant who just died during a penis enlargement surgical procedure. Dare I say it... that's a hard way to go. Here's more crazy for you.

● Apparently, our bug-eyed moronic friend Alexandra is building an ever-growing following among Democrats. Some are speculating, she could eventually end up leading the Democratic party one day. Delicious. This woman is a moron. And I mean that in the truest sense. She is stupid. As the co-founder of Greenpeace said, "She doesn't even know if she knows if she's right or wrong." Yep. She knows nothing. She as no judgment. She's a child of instagram wisdom and bumpersticker philosophy and no education that I can tell. She makes Pelosi look like Socrates. Let's encourage this. :)

● Dirty Jews run the world!! Not really, but antisemitism is the new black for Democrats. Indeed, while antisemitism has been growing for a long time through Palestinian "activists" and then anti-bank tropes by Occupy Wall Street, the Dems now have a Muslim woman (Omar) who is spewing anti-Jew like an Arab dictator at the UN. The Dems planned to counter this with a statement supporting Jews, but many are balking... including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and our bug-eyed moronic friend Alexandra. With luck Progressives will slowly push away more and more Jews.

● So after the MSM screamed that it's basically a hate crime to accuse "the media" of bias, the Democrats now are saying they won't let FOX run any debates because they are biased. Go figure. Anyways, Trump hilariously has said he won't let the others host Presidential debates as retaliation. //snicker snicker

● R. Kelly is off to jail again. Shouldn't he be there already? And why does his music not get banned like Michael Jackson's?

● There are more and more reports that the antiTrumps will be disappointed with the Mueller report. Whoops. The Democrats seem to be shifting focus by trying to jail Trump's kids. That always plays well... well, only in the world of crackpot dictatorships. Other Dems are starting to freak out that this might be a really bad idea. Nah. Go for it!

● Jeff Greenfield (a pretty good analyst) thinks the Democrats will definitely impeach Trump. I'm not sure they have a choice; their base wants it badly. Either way, it will end poorly for them.

● Finally, let me say that I have never seen the press more interested in stoking a war, this time in North Korea, since probably World War II or the Spanish American War. Yellow Press Journalism is back with a vengeance.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Couple Thoughts

Brain cells collide... thoughts ensue.

● The Governor of Colorado, a moderate idiot, and the Governor of Washington State, a more progressive idiot, both tossed their privileged white male hats into the race... waving their uninteresting dongs at all the other dong-less candidates. I think this is as much attention as either gets for the rest of the race. This is not the year of the honky peniser in the Democratic Primary. The Starbucks guy figured this out. Their rank and file want a victim to run against Trump, so count out the white boys. Besides, both seem bland and too moderate to interest the mouth-breathing red-tofu eaters that make up their primaries.

● I supposed one of them could claim to be gay, but the left is fast falling out with gays. The latest example is the number of women athletes who are now coming out (a little pun, perhaps) against these men who are trying to compete as women. See, it turns out that men and women are not entirely equal after all. It turns out that even average men are athletically superior to top women. Imagine that? Who could have known that? Anyways, the point is this. All these women are now complaining about it. And while the tranny lobby is screaming bloody murder, the left has been strangely silent, which indicates that influence has shifted: women > trannies. Add in the disappearance of almost all things gay from politics and I think the left has accepted that gays no longer matter to them.

● As odd as this may sound, I just don't care about Micheal Jackson. I really don't. He was one messed up person who seems to have been destroyed as a child and I have a hard time feeling that he was evil. Besides, it's your own damn fault if you let your kids anywhere near him. Seriously, all the signs were there. Anyways, I really don't like the decision by some British radio stations to now ban his songs. I really don't like this trend of trying to erase people when we don't like their crimes. It's Orwellian... and it feeds the intolerance trolls who are trying to destroy the word to make themselves feel better. IN fact, Amazon is being pressured to remove anti-vaccine books and videos from their site. I get it. I despise those people. Dangerous nut jobs. That said, I don't want a company like Amazon deciding whose views should be allowed into commerce. That reeks of Nazism.

● Rosanne put her finger right on the #metoo movement. She called them "hoes" and said they were obviously women who sold their bodies for careers and now are trying to cover up that fact. Duh. Too bad the media won't see that. They're scratching their heads about what Rosanne could possibly mean: "Isn't she a racist anyways, right?"

● Bug-eyed weirdo Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is under investigation for all kind of lies, hypocrisy and corruption, and she's only been in office like a week. Nevertheless, she lied about living in the district... she's socialist and yet moved into luxury apartments... she lied about when she moved in, proving she had money she claimed she didn't... she gave her boyfriend a government email... she gave her boyfriend a campaign job... she funneled money to a business run by her campaign manager... she's an environmentalist and yet has spent a fortune on Uber when the Metro is like 100 feet away... etc. This has been fun to watch, but don't think it will matter. The progressives will love her and forgive her everything until they don't. No amount of proof of anything will change that.

● The Progressives are furious with the Democrats for waiting for the Mueller report on Trump. They see that as a delaying tactic. And now that it sounds like Mueller will report nothing, they worry that the Democrats will use the report to escape doing an impeachment. Ha ha! Yep. Democrats are wily like that... making promises they never intend to keep.

● At a recent come to Jesus meeting among Democrats, the Progressives threw a hissyfit at the moderates for voting with Republicans on some recent amendments. Bug-eyed weirdo Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she would keep "a list" and use that list to get rid of these people. Shades of Richard Nixon... or Hitler. Leftists are consistent, that's for sure.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leftists Behaving Badly Update

More leftist misbehavior. It's funny how they're the ones who do these things, yet they think we're the bad guys.

● The Governor of Virginia and the Attorney General, both liberals, have yet to resign over blackface images (and other incidents). What's more, lots of Democrats are now saying that resignation wasn't called for. Remember that the next time they scream about someone else and demand a resignation.

● The Lt. Governor of Virginia, who is black and accused of two rapes, has not resigned either. He's denying the charges and responding with race-baiting language by calling the calls for his resignation a "modern day lynching." Funny how race trumps sex crimes. As an aside, this is another good measure of how the #metoo movement achieved nothing. They wanted a mere allegation of making a woman uncomfortable to be enough to result in public banishment. Here's a Lt. Governor accused of two rapes who has basically flipped his accusers the bird.

● Speaking of #metoo and the other associated hashtags, did you know they incorporated? Yep. Kind of tells you something, doesn't it? Anyways the "CEO" of the circus had to resign after her own son was accused of inappropriate sexual conduct.

● The left is trying very hard to shift the terms of the Jessie Smollett thing from what it is to "but there are such crimes and that's all that matters." Some ridiculously even add, "He drew attention to this." Right, like a rapist draws attention to sex crimes. In fact, lots of celebs are putting out statements "condemning" Smollett by calling for sympathy and understanding because of the horrible racist, anti-gay world in which we live. They have learned nothing... as expected.

● Coincidentally, there is another one of these. Last year, a "gay rights activist" in Michigan claimed that evil anti-gayists burned down his house, killing his dog and cats, because he was gay. Hate crime! Hate crime! Turn outs, he did it. Several witnesses said he was even covered in gas when they came to see what was happening... gas he bought an hour earlier in a can at a gas pump which caused the fire. Uh, gee, must be a secret Trump supporter.

● There is an interesting book written by a professor of some sort who examined headline cases of hate crimes. He found that in the past couple years, over 400 of the hate crimes that made the news turned out to be faked by the victim. He doesn't tell us how many made the news in total but working his numbers backwards, he looked at about 750 instances. That's a HUGE percentage and really should be cause for questioning on the left... but that doesn't fit their narrative.

● Hillary tells us she will not be silenced. Ok. I didn't know anyone had told the old bag to STFU?

● Maryland Del. Mary Ann Lisanti is begin called upon to resign. She's a democrat, but you'll have to search to find that in most articles. She apparently called certain Maryland counties "n*gger country" a couple weeks back. When this came to light, her defense was, "but I'm sure everyone's used that word." The mindset of a liberal, folks. Wanna bet she would be screaming if a Republican had said it?

● Bernie Sanders' former campaign manager has been accused of harassing women during the 2016 campaign and Bernie is accused of not doing anything about it. Bernie thinks that horrible.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanic Change?

This one is going to be a lot of guess work based on a handful of facts. Take it with a grain of salt, but remember it when I'm right... because I think I am.

Hispanics are shifting away from the Democratic Party.

Yep.

No, seriously. And I think I know why.

Here's the fact that started this. Last month, a liberal poll (the Marist poll for NPR) had a seemingly impossible result. Trump's support among Hispanics had risen 19% points to 50%. Let's start with the obvious, 31% support already is supposed to be impossible given that:

"Trump was, after all, still the same man who announced his candidacy by accusing Mexico of sending “rapists” across the border, the same man who ordered refugee children separated from their parents, the same man who has made building a wall to shut out migrants the focal point of his presidency."

That's the liberal view of Trump and it makes 31% seems impossible, right? (He got 28% in exit polls.) That's higher than most Republicans since GW Bush (40%). And to go to 50% seems ludicrous. Yet, here it was. Marist cautioned of a possible oversampling of Republicans and liberals dismissed this as insane, but soon more polls started showing similar number. Rooh rooh. Liberals are freaking out. How can an anti-Hispanic monster who wants to kill Hispanic kids possibly get Hispanic support? What is wrong with those stupid... uh. What is wrong with those people? Don't they know that if they support Trump, the world will fricken end?!!

Well, I have a theory... three actually, but one main one.

THEORY ONE: They Aren't Brown Blobs. Liberals see Hispanics as one people. They see them as the Indian/indigenous brown people the news trots out as victims. These are the people who work on liberals' lawns and clean their sheets. They are here illegally, and liberals are super condescending about them, but they see them as Democratic voters.

This is wrong, however. "Hispanics" are a label that fits a group as diverse as "Europeans." You have everyone from Mexicans to Brazilians with brown, white and black all mixed in. Argentinians are quite right wing, as are Cubans. Mexicans are left-leaning. Who the hell knows about Hondurans or El Salvadorans. They don't always agree within groups either. There was just a popular Mexican actor who got in trouble with liberals for looking down on an indigenous actress in rather racist terms. So they aren't monolithic in opinion to begin with.

What's more, depending on how long they've been in the country, their Hispanic identity fades and they become "white." There are millions of "Hispanics" you've met that you would never recognize as such. I think the polls are showing GOP support by Hispanics from right-leaning backgrounds and particularly among those who have slowly become honkys. These people aren't thought of by the Democrats when they talk about demographic destiny and that is the failure in their math... the one they failed to carry.

THEORY TWO: The American Dream. While other groups who have become slaves to the Democratic Party are happy to fight on social issues, Hispanics aren't. Blacks and women see themselves as ethnic/gender blocks and they want the culture to recognize them as such. Hispanics don't because they aren't monolithic, a Cuban doesn't see himself as a Mexican. Instead, what matters to most, as immigrants, is the American dream. Indeed, large numbers are here to work to get rich... the end. I suspect that some portion of the Trump-support growth comes from these people. They have realized that Trump is no danger to them, they like the economic effect of his policies (i.e. jobs), and they like that he's a "self-made" billionaire. They see that as confirming the path they want to take, and they don't particularly care for the attacks on his status as it reeks of ending upward mobility.

And now lets hit what I think is really going on...

THEORY THREE: We Don't Want You Here, Boy! With each passing day, the Democratic Party seems to become more strident. More importantly, though, they are strident about the issues their major constituencies care about. With gays falling away, that leaves white professional women and blacks. These groups really don't put any effort into the worries of other groups because they assume they will get their support automatically as the anti-White Male Party, nor do they offer anything other than their own pet peeves.

As an Hispanic, you can see the problem. Many of the things Hispanics want run contrary to the things white women and blacks want. White women and blacks want government money and jobs for themselves. They want laws discriminating in their favor. They want "reparations." Black groups want to unleash a crime wave. White women groups want to outlaw masculinity. Neither group cares about the economic path of Hispanics, the education that will help their kids, or their religious background. They don't want to add Hispanics to the table either because that diminishes the share of the booty they will get. Hence, Hispanics see the Democrats using them to obtain power and then giving them the shaft. Manual labor for life for you.

I think this is what is turning Hispanics away from the Democrats and toward a GOP that isn't particularly welcoming but does offer the things they want. The Democrats are offering poverty. They really did nothing to stop deportation either, and their views are as condescending as anything the GOP says. By comparison, the GOP whines about deportation (ineffectively) but at least offers a path to the American dream. Hispanics are rational. They see this.

So summing it all up, I think all the anti-white, anti-male speech by the Democrats is driving Hispanics away and they are now open to switching sides. Where it all ends isn't clear yet. But if the Democrats lose even a few percentages, they are doomed.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...