Hillary’s nasty woman brigade.

Trump struck a cord in the final debate last week when he called Hillary a “nasty woman”. Business Insider’s Linette Lopez is convinced that ordinary women will rush to self identify as nasty:

Clinton and her female supporters officially have a name they can be proud of.

This is a huge problem for Trump. Clinton’s “deplorable” comments rallied Trump’s base. But they already despised Clinton anyway. “Nasty woman,” however, is a rallying cry for any woman who works, any woman who is in charge of her home, any woman who decides her own future.

And these are voters that the Trump campaign has needed to woo in order to win the election. But he won’t — not if they’re “nasty.”

Indeed, there are already a slew of T shirts women can order and proudly wear to announce how nasty they are.  Lopez even claims the Clinton campaign has formally adopted the term:

Clinton’s campaign took over nastywomengetthingsdone.com, which directed anyone headed there to her campaign.

I suspect she is mistaken on this last part, and that the domain was instead picked up by supporters and not by the campaign itself.  At any rate, Elizabeth Warren stirred the nasty woman pot in a speech she gave today with Hillary:

For CNBC the money quote was:

Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote. … We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever,

Clearly this is a phrase feminists want to use to motivate their base, and in the short term at least I believe it could work.  But I don’t see most women wanting to identify as nasty, something ugly.  Feminists could avoid the obvious ugly implication by going with the sexual connotation, framing Hillary supporters as nasty sexual freaks instead of nasty ball busting feminists.  But then they would have to change the term from nasty woman (ghostbusters feminists) to nasty girl (sex positive feminists) to really capture the different meaning.  Even this would would be limited in scope.  In the right setting many women might flirt with such a term, but few would want to fully identify with it due to the risk of slut shaming that goes with adopting such a brazen label.  Both kinds of feminism are ugly, and there is no way to escape this fact.

Given how little time there is left before the election, my guess is that this strategy will help Hillary energize the harpy brigade without the image seeping through enough to make the average woman excessively uncomfortable.  Six months of Warren and other surrogates shouting that Hillary supporters are nasty women would take its toll, but two weeks doesn’t seem likely to be much of a problem.  The only thing I could see that might change this dynamic is if there were a big social media push by women who decided to signal their sweetness in contrast to Hillary’s (and her supporters’) nastiness.  But time is fleeting, and Trump’s comments about grabbing women by the p**** and trying to seduce married women would make such a counter movement harder to ignite.

This entry was posted in Ban Bossy, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Nasty Woman, Slut, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

164 Responses to Hillary’s nasty woman brigade.

  1. Pingback: Hillary’s nasty woman brigade. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. “this strategy will help Hillary energize the harpy brigade without the image seeping through enough to make the average woman excessively uncomfortable. ”

    The chans are abuzz with the theory that most of the female columnists who scream their hatred for Trump the loudest are the ones who are sexually fantasizing about Trump. Who knows what levers they will pull at the moment of truth?

    Source: 8chan. You may want brain bleach, but the following archive seems pretty tame:

    http://archive.is/x50f0

  3. GAHCindy says:

    I give up trying to figure out what secular/liberal/LIV women are thinking. I really don’t see how any woman goes for the “nasty” label. Unscrupulous, disease-ridden, dirty, nobody likes you. This is winning? Um. Hm. I give up. Really. What is wrong with these people?

  4. feeriker says:

    But I don’t see most women wanting to identify as nasty, something ugly.

    I must respectfully disagree. American women, particularly those of the millennial generation, but more generally those of a SIW bent, seem to wear “ugly and nasty” like a badge of pride and honor, all up and down their sleeves.

    Clearly this is a phrase feminists want to use to motivate their base, and in the short term at least I believe it could work.

    Difficult to understand why they think they need to motivate anyone, as this crowd will vote for Hitlary not only if it’s the last thing any of them do as living, breathing bipeds, but even if it were revealed tomorrow that she was a serial child molester and cannibal who ritually sacrificed children on an altar dedicated to the worship of Satan. In fact, that would probably make some of them vote twice or thrice for her. After all, the alternative to a Hitlary presidency is human decency, and heaven knows that has to be stopped at all costs and with every weapon at their disposal.

  5. Snowy says:

    With vagina-fests like the one in the video, the USA would have to rate as the most gynocentric cuntry in the world. Australia is not far behind you. My limited opinion from here in Australia is that I hope Hitlery goes down in a shower of shit. She looks like she’s close to death anyway, so even if she does get in she may not last long. I’m rooting for Trump. I think the Trumpster would be good for you.

  6. feeriker says:

    Snowy says:
    October 24, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    I haven’t visited Down Under in more than 35 and I remember Australian women being very feminine and pleasant, far more so than most American women ever have been. How tragic that things have changed so completely in such a relatively short time.

    As far as Hitlary is concerned, I’m convinced that the fix is in. The One Percent has chosen her as their figurehead for the next four years and that’s who will be sworn in as president. We peon are welcome –encouraged– to play election theater in two weeks (yours truly will pass, thank you), but that’s all it will be.

    Trump, it seems more and more obvious, is playing an actor whose job is to throw the election to his pal-ette Hitlary by pretending to be actual opposition just convincingly enough that the Elite can’t be accused of simply rigging the vote to reflect a Hitlary landslide (and don’t even get me started on those buggy Windows OS-configured Diebold voting machines that are now the de facto baseline for all of the states, but that’s a whole other rant for another time and place). However, now that he has realized that people actually take him seriously and are threatening to actually VOTE for him as if he’s a viable alternative, he’s woken up and started shooting himself in the foot to put himself behind the power curve.

    The LAST thing Trump wants is to be president, and he’s smarter than to think that even if he did get elected by some fluke (and despite his best efforts to sabotage himself) that he could actually get away with bucking the Reigning Elite’s agenda. The last president to try that got his head blown off in Dallas, Texas 53 years ago next month (Ronald Reagan made steps in that direction too, but a “reminder” sent his way, via the bullets of one John Hinckley Jr. in March, 1981 made him straighten up and fly right).

    Hitlary is indeed close to death and the one saving grace is that her ONE TERM will probably not even last to the halfway point. But that’s not going to stop her handlers from using her slowly dying carcass to ram the most vile, freedom-destroying, nation-killing agenda imaginable down our collective throats, at bayonet point.

  7. feeriker says:

    I haven’t visited Down Under in more than 35 years ….

  8. BubbaCluck says:

    Didn’t Trump call Rosie O’Donnell a pig, or something close to that? Does that mean, then, that all women are pigs? I am not seeing the logic here.

  9. feeriker says:

    Didn’t Trump call Rosie O’Donnell a pig, or something close to that? Does that mean, then, that all women are pigs? I am not seeing the logic here.

    A better question yet is, what do “woman” and “Rosie O’Donnell” have to do with each other?

  10. Anon says:

    At this point, I am not so sure that the media cannot fully reprogram people away from human nature….

    There are plenty of lefty MEN who will vociferously argue that Michelle Obama is prettier than Melania Trump and even Ivanka Trump…

    Yes, they will argue that tirelessly. These are white ‘males’ who are staunch Democrats, and are so well-trained in their self-aggrandizing virtue-signalling that this is what they truly think. I doubt anyone here is surprised to hear this.

  11. Snowy says:

    @Feeriker

    At the ripe old age of 50, I’ve seen the steady decline into the depths of gynocentrism here in Australia, its impact on women’s behaviour, the destruction of family and masculinity, etc. It’s certainly not the society it was when you visited 35 years ago. It should come as no surprise. Seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. The western world at least.

    It seems all “democratic” elections are rigged. So the Trumpster is a stooge. Who would have known? I shouldn’t be surprised. Always a pleasure to read your comments, Feeriker. Many happy returns.

  12. tsotha says:

    Unscrupulous, disease-ridden, dirty, nobody likes you. This is winning? Um. Hm. I give up. Really. What is wrong with these people?

    Nasty is also a synonym for “loose”. Picture a three hundred pound woman with lip piercings, blue hair, and cheap tattoos. If she didn’t label herself “nasty”, nobody around her would have any thoughts about sex.

  13. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    Trump, it seems more and more obvious, is playing an actor whose job is to throw the election to his pal-ette Hitlary by pretending to be actual opposition just convincingly enough that the Elite can’t be accused of simply rigging the vote to reflect a Hitlary landslide

    Yep. A large portion of his actions seem to point to this.

    In the WWE script, the GOPe simply lost their ‘heel’ contract to Trump. That is the only real change, since the contract given to the entity that is tasked with being the pretend opposition that loses, was a lucrative one.

    That is why Mitt Romney attacks Trump more than he ever attacked Obama. Trump really has seized that lucrative WWE contract from the GOPe. But all three entities (DNC, GOPe, Trump) were working for Hillary to win all along.

  14. Pingback: Hillary’s nasty woman brigade. | Reaction Times

  15. Anon says:

    The last president to try that got his head blown off in Dallas, Texas 53 years ago next month (Ronald Reagan made steps in that direction too, but a “reminder” sent his way, via the bullets of one John Hinckley Jr. in March, 1981 made him straighten up and fly right).

    This, I am not so sure about. Hinkley’s shots also hit three other people, including James Brady in the forehead (that he did not die is a miracle). I don’t think a calculated warning would choose to shoot so many innocents. Plus, a real warning would merely have missed Reagan. Actually hitting him in the torso, even if the intention was non-lethal, is very precarious to do with a 70-year-old man.

  16. The weird part about this election is that rather than showing that it’s always been a “Bi-factional ruling party”, it’s shown that it morphed into it right along with the rise of corruption in DC. DC hasn’t been pretty for 200 years, but we’ve seen an extremely large upswing over the last 2 decades or so. (Lack of existential threat, maybe?)

    But as the Podesta emails make pretty clear, Power is more decentralized than most actually realize. It’s a matter of wrangling together the different factions. (Much like the old English Kings dealing with the Barons.) But the depth to which some of the factions have gone Anti-Trump is pretty fascinating. Media & Banking make sense. Media is dying; Banking is about to blow up, one way or the other.

    It’s the rest that seem to have been victims of a collective Brain Drain. Trump is clearly in the “build stuff/build military up” camp, while not wanting to start WW3. So Defense being behind the Corpse is sort of surprising. Though I’m open to the possibility that their egos are so fragile that Trump’s Twitter page puts them into convulsions. (Again with the Brain Drain issue.)

    I still favor a solid Trump win, but I could see some down-ballot carnage for the GOP. We could see a 32 D/ 32 R/ 36 I election, but that’s also the reason for the computerized election rigging. And the reason Jeb! Bush ran. This was clearly a fairly straight-forward R-favored election cycle, but the GOP couldn’t find *anyone* that would buck a few donors and defend the Rule of Law. (That’s what the “Wall” is about. Always has been.) But Trump managed to run both to the Right and Left of the GOP field at the exact same time. (Or, maybe more accurately, his core political beliefs were Progressive 40 years ago and the culture zoomed passed him.)

    But the Elites being so terribly short-sighted is what we really should be the most concerned about. Hillary is literally DOA in Washington, as everyone seems to forget that everything she touches fails horribly. She’d be impeached before the Mid-terms, especially since she’d need elaborate voter fraud to win. Texas might just up and start the succession process. And there’s still going to be a long Bear Stock Market, along with a major European Bank Crisis just next year.

    Though I think the thing the Elites might be most concerned about with Trump isn’t truly Trump. It’s how much power they’ve vested in the Levers that the President controls. They’d built this monstrosity, but they thought they always would control it. Once someone even looks their way, it can be unleashed upon them as well. And they really don’t want those rocks turned over. Not the least of which because the instant there is blood in the water, the other sharks will feast on them. Fascinating stuff.

  17. feeriker says:

    Picture a three hundred pound woman with lip piercings, blue hair, and cheap tattoos

    No need to. I actually see, and often also SMELL them, in the(ir ample) flesh, every single day. I think that my local area is some sort of breeding ground or collection point for them.

    Bad as they look and smell, it’s when they open their mouths and speak that induces nausea and dry heaving.

  18. Grunt Gut says:

    I do not understand.
    I do not wish to understand either. . .how a woman would proudly accept the title of Nasty, which is the younger sister of Slut. Furthermore, how a woman could be called such a name by her own leadership, and still vote for said leadership.

  19. Jim says:

    Good to see cunts wearing that kind of shirt. It makes it much easier to know who they are and then avoid them.

  20. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    There was a “Nasty Girl” song and video in the 1980s, starring Vanity:

    Vanity was one of Prince’s protegees. In the 1990s, Vanity nearly died from her heavy drug use. Rushed to the Emergency Room, she promised God that if she pulled through, she would change her life. She did, and she became a Christian minister. Dropped the stage name Vanity and went back to being Denise Matthews:

  21. Feminist Hater says:

    I’m loving this. Hahahahaha! If Hilary wins, the amount of hubris from her supporters will drive a permanent wedge between the sexes. The women will demand all sorts of things and MGTOW will simply grow. They’ll be bitching, they’ll be nasty but no man will be listening.

  22. Feminist Hater says:

    Good to see cunts wearing that kind of shirt. It makes it much easier to know who they are and then avoid them.

    Look up Jordan Peterson and what is going on at the University of Toronto. It will soon be discrimination, punishable by prison and fines, to ignore these sick people. You will comply.

  23. Spawny Get says:

    I welcome this move by nasty women to advertise their nature. We all should IMHO.

    Going forward I will now find it easier to not disempower such wimminz by helping them, even if asked. In fact, especially if asked because I try and make it my practice to not help any woman unless asked politely first – just so there’s no problem identifying that I am doing them a favour, rather than delivering an owed service like some public utility butler for the weaker sex.

    I see it as part of my duty as a glorious patriarch…or is it shitlord? Whichever. I accept both titles with visible pleasure.

  24. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Things were difficult in the USA as far as I could tell in the 1990’s. That is when the war against boys started in earnest. . A kind of collective insanity seemed to be taking over women’s minds. Perhaps it is biological in original as Sapolsky would probably claim. https://youtu.be/m3x3TMdkGdQ.

    That is he would claim that just like Toxoplasmosis controls the mind of rats so there might be many other parasitic organism that also get into people and control their behavior.

  25. Hose_B says:

    Katy Perry was out convincing college girls to go vote for Hillary.

    “We’re out here campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Ever heard of her? Because there’s no other alternative. We need our issues heard, we need our bodies taken care of, we need all that choice.”

    THERES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE (sound like Hitler)
    WE NEED ALL THAT CHOICE (well women anyway”

    And of course we should listen to Miley Cyrus “Me and Hillary share equality for all. Everyone gets stuck on voting for her out of fear of what could be, but I would vote for her anyway.”

    Yep. No fear of what could be here.

  26. anon2 says:

    Good. I like it when the opposition overplays its hand right before the election.
    Keep overplaying ladies. I want Hillary supporters everywhere to wear these tee shirts.

  27. anon2 says:

    The only thing better would be “I’m dumb and I’m fat and I’m voting for Hillary!”

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Freeriker

    Trump, it seems more and more obvious, is playing an actor whose job is to throw the election to his pal-ette Hitlary by pretending to be actual opposition just convincingly enough that the Elite can’t be accused of simply rigging the vote to reflect a Hitlary landslide (and don’t even get me started on those buggy Windows OS-configured Diebold voting machines that are now the de facto baseline for all of the states, but that’s a whole other rant for another time and place). However, now that he has realized that people actually take him seriously and are threatening to actually VOTE for him as if he’s a viable alternative, he’s woken up and started shooting himself in the foot to put himself behind the power curve.

    This is a very strange theory, because it assumes that Trump doesn’t really have an ego. The accusation is that Trump is the ultimate team player who doesn’t like to be in charge or the spotlight, and would gladly drag his own reputation through the mud if it would help others. What about Trump’s life and career made you come to the conclusion that the man has no ego? The man puts his own name in huge letters on everything he builds.

  29. Lost Patrol says:

    She plans to do for gender relations what the current president has done for race relations, thus completing the “transformation”.

  30. anon2 says:

    Just read the linked (unbelievably stupid) article entitled, “Trump and Hillary made the exact same mistake”. So…presumably, if Hillary had said, “Trump is deplorable!” it would have been the same as painting half the population as deplorable. In what world does it work like that? They can dare to dream.

    “Clearly this is a phrase feminists want to use to motivate their base, and in the short term at least I believe it could work.”

    Their base needs no motivation. They are already voting for Hillary. There’s not a single person who would be persuaded to vote for Hillary by the “be nasty” argument, who wasn’t already voting for Hillary.

  31. Damn Crackers says:

    It’s like looking out at an ocean of polluted wombs.

  32. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    The accusation is that Trump is the ultimate team player who doesn’t like to be in charge or the spotlight, and would gladly drag his own reputation through the mud if it would help others.

    It is possible that what Trump will receive in return are huge government construction contracts, and high-end government conferences in his hotels. His net worth may triple from the quid pro quo Hillary provides, as per the arrangement.

    His ego is certainly high, but for each person who now hates him, there are people who like him much more than before be was in politics… To some extent, his ego has received a boost.

    No one knows for sure, but there is *some* indications that he is secretly allied to Hillary..

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    We need our issues heard,

    1. I’ve long heard older women demand their “right to be heard.”

    2. When a woman says she wants to be “heard,” she means she wants you to agree with her, and comply with her demands.

    This is why older womyn embrace the “nasty” label. Along with taking pride in being loud, mouthy, opinionated, brazenly dressed, and “in your face.”

    An older woman is invisible to men. They hate that. So they get even louder and more abusive, to force men to notice them and comply with their demands. Older womyn know they can’t force us to desire them. But they can at least force us to notice and comply, if only to pacify their anger.

    Hence the angry yoga pants protesters. Hence every angry “in your face” feminist march. Loud and nasty is the only way they can get our attention and provisions.

  34. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ October 24, 2016 at 9:53 pm:
    “But I don’t see most women wanting to identify as nasty, something ugly.

    I must respectfully disagree. American women, particularly those of the millennial generation, but more generally those of a SIW bent, seem to wear “ugly and nasty” like a badge of pride and honor, all up and down their sleeves.”

    I concur. It’s a combination of Alpha widowhood (no man is good enough for me) combined with the Slut Event Horizon (no man wants me). This seems to be the point at which women both embrace ugliness and go lesbian.

    Hmm, I just convinced myself that Hillary wants to exterminate all male life in the entire world. “Nasty women get things done”, eh? So what do nasty women want to get done? Punish the unsexy men who no longer want them…

    Looking Glass @ 12:35 am:
    “The weird part about this election is that rather than showing that it’s always been a “Bi-factional ruling party”, it’s shown that it morphed into it right along with the rise of corruption in DC.”

    An Alpha wolf wandering into the Gamma Warren is an existential threat.

    “Trump, it seems more and more obvious, is playing an actor whose job is to throw the election to his pal-ette Hitlary”

    It doesn’t hold water. Dalrock’s right that his ego alone makes this implausible. How I see it is insider Trump is doing an endgame flanking run for America’s throne, like a football-playing Borgia tripping his buddy so he can be the one to score the game-winning touchdown.

  35. @Dal & Freeriker, we’ll know by how quickly he rolls over when conceding defeat – contested or not. I’ve shared Freeriker’s suspicions from the start of this campaign, how else could a woman who’s earned such long-term hatred from so many people ever win the presidency? Fix it by running a guy like Bernie as some kind of internal competition and run someone even more hate-able on the opposite side, Trump. The only way anyone could opt for Hillary is to play the misogyny card (easy with Trump) and pit the sexes against each other – feminists and fe-male identifiers vs. the evil caricatures of vaudevillian “Patriarchy”.

    She’s been caught in so many criminal enterprises now that the only way anyone would ignore them is to have an even more sinister candidate for her to run against. Who else but Trump could fulfill that role?

  36. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    That is the exact issue my likely soon to be ex-wife asserts. I never listen to her, in her mind, when it is just that I don’t always agree with her.

    Impossible to work through that without a mindset shift on her part.

    Many women are impacted with that mindset.

  37. Gunner Q says:

    “The only way anyone could opt for Hillary is to play the misogyny card (easy with Trump) and pit the sexes against each other – feminists and fe-male identifiers vs. the evil caricatures of vaudevillian “Patriarchy”.”

    That isn’t the Elites’ style. They play by running acceptable candidates in both Dem and Rep parties then enjoying the show of voters choosing between doomed and damned.

    The fact that Rep leaders have blown their covers as liberal plants in order to undermine Trump is a good sign Trump isn’t campaigning as a team player.

  38. Avraham rosenblum says:

    BillyS. I have seen the kind of behavior you mention. Sometimes no matter what you do or say you are judged by someone on the scales of guilt. It starts small. Some innocent gesture or custom they see as terrible thing with some bad intentions. If any friend of yours or your wife has gotten to that point that means they are beyond the point of no return.

  39. feeriker says:

    This is a very strange theory, because it assumes that Trump doesn’t really have an ego. The accusation is that Trump is the ultimate team player who doesn’t like to be in charge or the spotlight, and would gladly drag his own reputation through the mud if it would help others. What about Trump’s life and career made you come to the conclusion that the man has no ego? The man puts his own name in huge letters on everything he builds.

    Anon pretty much sums up my response to this in his post of October 25, 2016 at 10:26 am.

    I will add that even bigger than Trump’s ego –or perhaps an integral part of it– is his ambition. That might lead you to ask “What’s more ambitious than wanting the presidency?” The answer is “building one’s business empire to even greater heights than have already been attained, with the help of one’s pal who becomes the new Sock Puppet-in-Chief.”

    The American presidency is not a position of power, despite what we’ve all been conditioned to believe. It is a figurehead for the real powers, albeit one that grants the person wearing the mask certain perquisites that can canfer great benefits upon others. That’s a fine and dandy job to have if you’re a talentless loser who is incapable of accomplishing anything productive or beneficial to humanity in the real world, a description that fits nearly all of America’s presidents –heck, nearly all of America’s career politicians– in the modern era. But that absolutely and obviously does NOT describe Donald Trump.

    No, Trump has much better and grander things to do with himself than play the role of marionette for the One Percent. What better way to boost his own ego than to execute a brilliant ploy of pretending to leadership aspirations while playing his hand so as to ensure behind the scenes that his so-called “rival,” the person in the best position to use their “executive” role to confer the favors he needs to accomplish his REAL goals, wins the election? THAT clever coup would be the ego booster of one hundred lifetimes while making him richer and more influential than ever. Raw ego != shortsightedness or recklessness.

  40. feeriker says:

    Hmm, I just convinced myself that Hillary wants to exterminate all male life in the entire world. “Nasty women get things done”, eh? So what do nasty women want to get done? Punish the unsexy men who no longer want them…

    It’s amusing to no end to listen to feminist loudmouths spout the delusional rhetoric asserting that men collectively will just roll over and let women grind them into the dirt. It’s akin to the BLM crowd’s delusonal fantasties of invading white neighborhoods and looting and rioting when the real end result would just be a Mount Rainier-sized pile of black corpses.

  41. The problem with this type of topic is that it’s very easy to over-think the Elite’s objectives and miss how they actually operate. They’ve spent most of the last 500 years in the West fighting each other. Even in our current period, they constantly feast on the weak one, if they screw up in the wrong way. (See: Theranos, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank; e.g. Lehman)

    But unless they’re willing to Off a member of their own group, the means of control really only works somewhat. This has been a running problem for the Party Elites since the 1960s. This is the reason for the manipulation of Primary Dates and all other sorts of shenanigans. Clinton wasn’t supposed to lose to Obama in 2008. And that was anything but a clean fight. The Clinton Camp had to use out-right vote rigging to beat Bernie. Bernie freaking Sanders. Think about that for a bit. (It’s not a good sign for their grasp on power.)

    As for Trump. Trump is Trump. Man has a massive ego and absolutely loves the attention. But the Elites went really, really low on him, and the Al Smith dinner makes pretty clear he’s deeply invested. And he knows he can win.

    Which is why everyone really should hope he does win. If he doesn’t, you’ll have the most corrupt and incompetent corpse to ever occupy the White House. And the ground-level response is going to get nasty. We’ve now got complete proof that Hillary lied under oath, we’ve got the connections to how her camp paid off one of the main FBI guys and we don’t even have the full emails yet. And the rumbling is that the former Clinton Foundation CEO has asked for political asylum with Russia.

  42. Novaseeker says:

    Conspiracy theories are kind of silly and in this case totally unnecessary.

    Trump is where he is because the the rest of the GOP was inept, didn’t take him seriously, and got bit in the ass by its own base. Sure, the conservatives are aligned with the progressives, but that’s not new — it isn’t a conspiracy, rather it’s the fact that we have two different flavors of liberal party in our politics. We have no real right wing party, and we never have.

    Hillary is going to win, and win big. She’s going to win because Trump has alienated too many people to win a national election. He has his core base behind him, but he managed to piss off almost everyone who is not in that core base such that they will either vote for Hillary or not vote at all (what I am doing). That isn’t because it’s a conspiracy — it’s because Trump is an egomaniac who thought (thinks?) he can get away with pissing off everyone outside his core base and still win. He can’t, and he won’t.

    Hillary will be an absolute disaster for men. Batten down the hatches, boys, it’s going to be ugly as shit in the next four years. We’ll be very lucky if places like this are permitted to exist even two years hence, never mind four. Stockpile your ammo, and don’t put off additional weapon purchases! Shit’s about to get real.

  43. Boxer says:

    There are plenty of lefty MEN who will vociferously argue that Michelle Obama is prettier than Melania Trump and even Ivanka Trump…

    I have argued in the past that Michelle Robinson was pretty hot as a young woman… and all the usual suspects came out to play. My opinion stands. To see the young doofus Barack Obama hanging out with the young Michelle would have been somewhat surprising, unless she was (as many women are) planning a political/economic coup through the union. She was a gymnast and had a fairly hot bod, slim and feminine.

    hxxps://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/youngmooch.jpg?w=500&h=421
    (change x to t)

    I’ve hit worse.

    Now, to compare young Michelle to (even the now old) Melania is a tough sell. What man would choose so unwisely? It’s almost an apples and oranges thing.

    Boxer

  44. I agree with Feeriker’s comment.
    Have you ever watched “Mean Girls”?
    “Nasty” and “mean” are precisely the adjective labels that American women age 16 to 40 wear with pride.
    Arms folded or standing akimbo. Nasty and mean. Girls rule, boys drool.
    “You go girl!” for the win.

  45. DrTorch says:

    but even if it were revealed tomorrow that she was a serial child molester and cannibal who ritually sacrificed children on an altar dedicated to the worship of Satan.

    Frankly, w/ some of the rumors surrounding what Max Spiers was investigating, I think this is close to the truth. Seriously.

  46. Byzantine says:

    “As far as Hitlary is concerned, I’m convinced that the fix is in.”
    It is my firm belief that there is a very strong occult side to this charade, esp. choosing dying female for the future POTUS.
    As well as pushing women across Western (and Orthodox Eastern) world to occupy important positions such as Chancelor, Defence Minister, and so on.
    Isthar/ISIS cult lives on. It is no coincidence Satan’s trone has been moved to Berlin at some point.
    Maybe some of the knowledgeable Abrahamic followers here at Dalrock can enlighten us why is it so?
    Thanks in advance

  47. thedeti says:

    “Hillary is going to win, and win big. She’s going to win because Trump has alienated too many people to win a national election. He has his core base behind him, but he managed to piss off almost everyone who is not in that core base such that they will either vote for Hillary or not vote at all (what I am doing). That isn’t because it’s a conspiracy — it’s because Trump is an egomaniac who thought (thinks?) he can get away with pissing off everyone outside his core base and still win. He can’t, and he won’t.”

    I pretty much agree with this.

    Hillary is one of the weakest candidates ever to get a major party nomination. Her negatives are among the highest ever for a presidential nominee. People who don’t like her, positively hate her. She has made a ton of enemies along the way. People close to her and Bill Clinton describe her as a tinhorn dictator/tyrant and a bully. She appears to be suffering from some sort of serious neurological condition that causes seizures. (Yes I’ve seen the video. Looks like a seizure to me.) There are photos and video of her having to be helped up stairs and into vehicles, video of her stumbling and falling, and not Gerald Ford-style mishaps. she’s shown collapsing. She appears to be in poor physical health, and lacks the physical constitution for the presidency.

    Hillary is a terrible campaigner. She thinks it’s beneath her. She’s not a smart politician. She has no executive experience. She has only a fraction of Bill’s political instincts, and has absolutely NONE of his charm. She makes no secret of the fact that she literally hates the “basket of deplorables”. She will see no need to walk that statement back at all when she is elected.

    Trump sealed the GOP nomination because the base is sick and tired of being shafted and screwed over by the very party that claims to represent them and their interests. He also won the nomination because the base was cheering and slobbering at Trump’s perpetually extended middle finger at the media, Democrats, and the Cathedral. He is an egocentric asshole who said what was on his mind and said things the base was aching to hear a national candidate say. He knew the GOP base wanted him to say those things, so he said them, and the base responded by handing him the nomination.

    This is really a war between the GOP national party structure and its rank and file base. The base just gave the GOP a black eye. When Trump loses in what I believe will be decisive for Hillary, the national party and the GOP Blogosphere and the NeverTrumpers will heave a collective “We told you so” on November 9.

  48. thedeti says:

    And, had Trump not alienated too many people outside the base, if he had shown more presidential “stuff” and proved himself presidential timber, he actually would have had a shot at winning. But he will not, and the bimbo eruptions won’t make all that much difference. The electoral numbers just won’t be there on Nov. 8 for a Trump win.

  49. Oscar says:

    @ Avraham rosenblum says:
    October 25, 2016 at 11:35 am

    “BillyS. I have seen the kind of behavior you mention.”

    So, you’ve met a woman?

  50. sipcode says:

    Elizabeth Warren and Hillerbilly make Hitler speaking seem quite palatable, like he actually had …some ….authority in his words.

    I have a non-Christian friend who continually rejects the thought of coming under the Word, but is looking for truth and smells something unusual is up. Yesterday he said in an email about the state of things:

    “I’m actually not feeling hopeless by any means more intrigued by how orchestrated this all feels. I want to understand the game behind the game…. almost at the cosmic level if you will.”

    I believe the Lord “has done this.” I believe He has had women become ugly and vicious, attacking men for centuries, and had men “hearken to the voice of the woman,” becoming soft and effeminate. The state where women rule is a state of God’s abandonment.

    But He is in process of restoring things to His original order. And those that will not heed and follow will be forsaken ….forever.

    And this is all for God’s glory. Stay engaged; stay tuned!

  51. Lost Patrol says:

    Hillary will be an absolute disaster for men.

    A post menopausal battle-axe waving the (now nasty) woman card, known for vindictiveness, daddy issues, and husband issues (played out on a world stage with her as the butt of the jokes); will wield power and influence vastly exceeding that of any regular ol’ pissed off feminist seeking revenge on all men.

    It may be that “disaster” barely serves to convey the magnitude of what awaits. Keep your sense of humor fellas. Dark humor for dark times.

  52. Crystal says:

    Gosh, in my world “nasty” refers to consistently subpar hygiene and/or keeps unsanitary living conditions. That’s why I was surprised he would use that word to describe some one, it sort of has a ring of immaturity to it and it was really best left ignored. No one would ever embrace the word “nasty” as an empowerment word. Good luck with that one.

  53. Feminist Hater says:

    Hillary will be an absolute disaster for men. Batten down the hatches, boys, it’s going to be ugly as shit in the next four years. We’ll be very lucky if places like this are permitted to exist even two years hence, never mind four. Stockpile your ammo, and don’t put off additional weapon purchases! Shit’s about to get real.

    This is good. She is a criminal, totally in the pocket of a global elite and hasn’t got a clue. America is the new Rome and it is good that she falls by the hands of a pathetic, nasty woman.

  54. @thedeti & novaseeker:

    I’ll be honest, this is the first time that your White, Upper-Middle/Upper Class-ness has blinded you pretty badly. You fell for the Media PsyOps. You believed what you were told to believe. That’s the reason for the avalanche of negative Media, all coordinated to make you think that way. You’ve been played.

    Hillary needed electronic vote rigging to beat *BERNIE SANDERS*. Trump has shown the beat appeal to non-college educated Whites and minorities of any major GOP candidate in recent memory. And, at best, this is a D+3 election.

    That’s why they had to go for the massive PsyOps approach. All but the most core of Progressives don’t have a desire to turn out to vote for Hillary. If this is a R+2 Election with high Independent turnout, New York suddenly ends up being a close one.

    It’s the college-educated Whites that really don’t like Trump and/or does worse than normal GOP does. Wonder why? Maybe because they’ve spent the last 9 months poisoning your thoughts on him? The Media is so far in the tank for Hillary that Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and CNN is going to go negative that he’s racist & homophobic because he didn’t cure AIDS. The Media attacks are targeted right *at* you. And, hey, look, they worked!

    Also, since the response will be emotion-based, every rationalization can be swatted down if you actually recall the way previous elections actually went. Obama called Sarah Palin a pig. Gore, Kerry & Romney looked wonderfully “Presidential”, how’d that go? (McCain has always looked angry.) And let’s not forget Lee Atwater, possibly the meanest GOP operative ever. He actually apologized to Dukakis after the election.

    Lastly, remember, I’m in the exact same group. I just recognized the situation before the Conventions. The Elites thought Trump was a dog & pony show, so they used it for ratings. But he’s been serious from the start, so they finally started having to find ways of attacking the vulnerable groups to Trump’s election path. Congrats! You were it. The Trump Tape was mostly focused at the Mormons still butt-hurt because Romney played Washington Generals.

  55. Feminist Hater says:

    It may be that “disaster” barely serves to convey the magnitude of what awaits. Keep your sense of humor fellas. Dark humor for dark times.

    All these pansies and pussies will be begging for a Trump president once Hillary is through with them, and all that because they cannot stand a little banter between men. Pathetic, ‘presidential material’ lol, America hasn’t had such caliber for such a long time and now they complain, bitter sweet irony.

    Oh, it’s going to get fun alright but it’s all the better, the sooner feminists get their true game on the better.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    “Hillary will be an absolute disaster for men.”

    Nah, she already has one foot in the grave. Tim Kaine would be the real winner of the White House. I need to scrutinize him when there’s time.
    .

  57. Novaseeker says:

    It’s the college-educated Whites that really don’t like Trump and/or does worse than normal GOP does. Wonder why? Maybe because they’ve spent the last 9 months poisoning your thoughts on him?

    You may think that way, but it isn’t the case for me and, from what I can see around me, isn’t the case for at least some others like me. Their distaste for Trump hasn’t had much of an impact on me, and my own distaste for him long predates his political career as well.

    In any case, it could be the case that all of the polling is wrong — who knows? From where I am sitting, however, this doesn’t look like it will be a close election.

  58. Novaseeker says:

    Kaine is a white knight mangina — really the dictionary definition of the term could have his picture next to it. However, he’s no worse than the average politician — he doesn’t hate men with every cell in his body like Hillary does, in a visceral, deep, vindictive way.

  59. thedeti says:

    Looking Glass:

    I don’t necessarily have a dislike for Trump. That wasn’t what my comment focused on. My comment focused on the political reality that Trump had an uphill battle to begin with and that he cannot win most of the populous states’ electoral votes. He just can’t. No Republican can. You could have run Ronald Reagan again, and he wouldn’t win NY, IL, CA, all of New England, VA, MD, NJ, OR and WA. There has been a massive, massive shift to the left in the last 30 years. Just huge.

    Trump didn’t get the job done. He was and is a bombastic, egocentric blowhard with serious mental and character defects. (Pretty much all politicians at that level are such, though.) Trump’s shortcomings are magnified mostly because he’s been a clown and huckster for most of his public life. He got the nomination because he said things the base wanted to hear. He will lose the general because he said and is saying things the GOP base wanted to hear, and the GOP base is dwindling by the day. A GOP presidential nominee has to get the base plus another 10-15% in the popular votes to flip some blue states red. Trump couldn’t do that.

    The bimbo eruptions won’t make a difference. Everyone knows rich, powerful, connected men do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to sex. Everyone knows they have terrible marriages, they cheat on their wives in full view of those wives, they fornicate, they use high end hookers, etc. Everyone practically expects apex males to act like that. And they do it because they can.

  60. PuffyJacket says:

    Hillary is going to win, and win big. She’s going to win because Trump has alienated too many people to win a national election.

    Hillary is *likely* to win because women have the vote. No further explanation is required.

  61. VFM_7916 says:

    There’s a lot of wierdness in this comment thread.

    Especially from those redpill thinkers that do incredible work in the manosphere. I say this in regard to the “Trump/Clinton collusion” statements I see here.

    Over the last year not one other republican candidate, not even Cruz, could have stood and battled Hillary. None of them could stand the media liestorm that Trump has. Not one could motivate the base like Trump has. If you think so, then #Cuckservative might be an appropriate hashtag for you.

    That Clinton would be crowned president has been the work of the establishment for many years. She had Kaine locked up as VP in 2015. If they thought she was too weak, or would upset their applecart, then Bush would have been the candidate.

    As it is, the people have screwed it up by bringing on the Trumpslide. Keep in mind as the media thrashes and wails over the next two weeks that they, all SJWs in fact, lie. And project. And double down.

    So keep your faith in the God Emperor. Go vote (with a paper ballot!). Hoist your finger at the establishment, so that even if you go down, at least you can take them with you.

  62. anon2 says:

    “I’ll be honest, this is the first time that your White, Upper-Middle/Upper Class-ness has blinded you pretty badly. You fell for the Media PsyOps. You believed what you were told to believe. That’s the reason for the avalanche of negative Media, all coordinated to make you think that way. You’ve been played.”

    At this point (unless there is new information I haven’t seen) every poll either puts Hillary in the lead, with the exception of one or two where they are tied. There are a great many polls.
    There’s definitely a “conspiracy” to get Hillary elected, but I find it difficult to believe that it goes so deep as to cover every single poll in general circulation.
    I’d love to believe it though.

  63. Kevin says:

    I would not mind it if Nasty women voted to keep me out of their lives forever. But in reality they vote for me to be their surrogate daddy with government programs forever. If there was an option that I could vote myself out of their lives I would gladly take it, but we all know they say they want me out, but they really really seem to need a lot of my money for their independent world.

  64. Kevin says:

    @VFM_7916

    I don’t know what the final vote will be but as political theater I think you are very wrong. Trump’s vaunted debating skills and media handling have turned out to be illusions. He was helped by media when he bashed republicans but as soon as he turned against Hillary he has looked inept with a few moments of brilliance. He has sometimes looked confused, and often out of his depth. I hope I am wrong but I think Romney has a good chance of having better numbers than Trump and the choice of Trump will prove to have been incredibly flawed. And I still maintain given the incredible Hillary corruption that a clean young handsome Rubio would be up by 5 points. But he shot himself by getting suckered on immigration.

    Am I voting Trump? Yes, anything to stop a corrupt machine politician. But Trump has not appeared to be up to the task of defeating the weakest democrat in ages. Weaker by far than Kerry with a weak economy. I do hope Trump wins but the numbers are holding steady and they proved to be very accurate with Romney.

    Trump has not energized the base. Its too long a discussion, but Trump has energized some people but not the base. Trump holds few political views similar to mine, and I am a very typical Republican. This is his biggest problem with the base. They are never Trumpers because they reject him on the principle of political philosophy. The democrats unite behind a monster because they are sure her politics is reliably leftist. Its not so clear with Trump – what am I getting? Another liberal? Then who cares?

    I hope Trump wins and he may outperform the polls but unless it is by a lot he is toast. No bad thing about Hillary slows her down. People have accepted she is a criminal and they are ok with that. That is the state of American politics.

  65. sipcode says:

    Dalrock says: October 25, 2016 at 7:36 am

    “This is a very strange theory, because it assumes that Trump doesn’t really have an ego. The accusation is that Trump is the ultimate team player who doesn’t like to be in charge or the spotlight, and would gladly drag his own reputation through the mud if it would help others.“

    Dalrock, maybe you are just considering the game.

    As one non-believer friend said to me yesterday: “[I’m] more intrigued by how orchestrated this all feels …I want to understand THE GAME behind the game…. almost at the cosmic level”

  66. BillyS says:

    We will know what will happen in a few weeks, so I am not going to worry too much.

    But I will note that Romney and McCain acted “presidential” and we can see where that got them. Even Ron Paul acted that way.

    t could be all orchestrated, but it seems more like Jeb Bush or Rubio would have been orchestrated if that was it. They were both quite weak and went for the same globalist agenda.

    We will know at least some things in a few weeks either way.

  67. Gunner Q says:

    sipcode @ 3:23 pm:
    “As one non-believer friend said to me yesterday: “[I’m] more intrigued by how orchestrated this all feels …I want to understand THE GAME behind the game…. almost at the cosmic level””

    Introduce your friend to the prophecy of Daniel’s statue (Daniel 2:31-44). The last two governments–the Roman Empire of iron and the final empire of iron & clay–has proven insightful for me these days.

    Iron and clay do not mix. An empire of iron and clay would be an internally divided one, having some of the strength of ancient Rome but lacking in unity. Today, I look at a tyrannical world gov’t forming to rule over an intentionally miscegenated humanity and find the mixed iron & clay image to be a disturbingly accurate description.

    I can give more prophecies/signs if your friend wants.

  68. Random Angeleno says:

    Sure people are insisting this has the look and feel of 2012. I say you should look at this differently: this has the look and feel of the final weeks of the Brexit campaign. Virtually every poll had the Remain’ers in the lead right up to the day before the vote yet the referendum result still went the other way. When the fundamentals don’t change that much, the polls tend to be very reliable, some more so than others and this is reflected in those who believe in them lock, stock and barrel. But when the fundamentals change, when another path is opened as it was in the UK and here, the polls tend not to capture as well the changing ground behind the alternative. The polling methodologies in the UK did not track what actually happened and the same could very well happen on November 8.

    Going to bet there are a lot of people who just aren’t saying anything now, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they’ll go with Trump and remain silent about it afterwards. There are more Trump signs here than Hillary signs here and this is a very Democrat-leaning region. So my hat’s off to them for risking the harassment I know they’re getting.

    Those polls that had HRC up as many as 12 points have been shown to be flawed, sometimes very deeply flawed. The most accurate poll in 2012 was the IBD/Tipp poll; they currently have HRC +1. I’ll go along with that one for now, but I really think this is going to flip the day of the election. It’s interesting that even the most flawed polls are only now suddenly trending back to the mean. Well it’s either that or lose all credibility since it is actually close. We might have a “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment…

  69. Otto Lamp says:

    Slut.

    Women may act like a slut, they may don all the adornments of a slut, they may even have secret fantasies of being a slut, but dare to call them a slut they melt down. Women do not want to be thought of in negative terms,

    Nasty women for Hillary will go over about as well as sluts for Hillary. A few crackers women on the fringe will go for it (the same ones that participate in slut-walks) but the rest will recoil in horror at labeling themselves nasty (or any negative term).

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Another interpretation of “nasty”

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hillary Clinton issues instructions to her loyal followers…

  72. PuffyJacket says:

    Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote

    Well, maybe one of these is true.

    The irony of Elizabeth Warren complaining about the “rape culture” is quite rich however, given that no one has made a pass on her in at least two decades.

  73. feeriker says:

    The irony of Elizabeth Warren complaining about the “rape culture” is quite rich however, given that no one has made a pass on her in at least two decade

    As has been observed in these parts regularly, the women who scream loudest and most frequently about “RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE Culture!!!!!!!!!!!” are the women who are sexually invisible to men.

  74. Anon says:

    As has been observed in these parts regularly, the women who scream loudest and most frequently about “RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE Culture!!!!!!!!!!!” are the women who are sexually invisible to men.

    Not just that, but the damning evidence is on the other end.

    The most attractive women specifically never complain about some imaginary rape epidemic. Even though these women would presumably be at the highest risk, they just don’t seem to be worried about rape, whether through their utterances or their actions.

    Hence, the rape culture narrative is completely bogus.

  75. Lovekraft says:

    Progressives deserve nothing in terms of respect and support. I have been advising people whenever I can of the 5 words one is obligated to say to someone he/she suspects or knows is an sjw:

    Hello
    Goodbye
    I Don’t Care

    I go on to state that should the marxist continue their attack, bring out the cellphone, maintain a six foot distance and begin recording. This is no longer about reasoned debate. The left has demonstrated that this isn’t an option.

  76. pb says:

    time to play that Janet Jackson song…

  77. Lovekraft says:

    There seems to be a heavy psychological burden weighing on the alt-right and other members of the alternative media in that we feel the pain of thousands upon thousands of people trampled on in the name of ‘progressivism’. We are their voices and eventually one of two things happens: change and transparency ensures these voices receive justice OR the momentum of the left means we become numb and tune out.

  78. Just Saying says:

    Nasty women are old, ugly, dried-up, bitter things, that are best tossed as they are “nasty” and not in a good way…

  79. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    Your theory would make sense if we had another McCain or Romney run, someone who played soft and didn’t hit their opponent hard. I can only speculate because we don’t know goes on behind closed doors, but it seems that Jeb Bush was going to be the pre-planned, prepackaged wimpy beta male to run against Hillary – it would be a giant LARP fest. Hillary who would act as the “strong, independent woman” against Jeb, pretending he represents the peak of male strength while throwing pulled punches at her that she could easily dodge. She then crushes him in the election and goes on to pretend it’s some massive victory for women. It’s telling that elder Bush is endorsing Clinton over Trump.

    Based purely off of observation and gut instinct, I think Trump derailed this plan and nobody was prepared for it. He has completely shifted the Overton Window and brought topics once only discussed on blogs such as CH into the mainstream – that’s not what controlled opposition is supposed to do. How many other Republicans were calling for Hillary to get locked up? How many of them had rioters at their rallies?

    My observations have nothing to do with my personal political views on the man, but Trump has behaved in the exact opposite way a plant or “controlled person” would; he’s galvanized millions of Americans and acted as a catalyst to reveal where people’s loyalties truly lie.

    That is precisely what Democrats do not want to see; they wanted a weak Republican who demoralized the base with his weakness.

    I would only ask why debate moderators have repeatedly asked Trump if he would accept the election results. People balk when I say it, but it is because if Trump decided to go all the way he could cause a constitutional crisis. He has enough supporters willing to go the distance to avoid a Hillary presidency that it could cause a civil war or some national emergency. Nobody wants to admit it, but we’re reaching the point where the differences between the two Americas are sufficient for them to no longer coexist peacefully. Our forefathers killed each other during the Civil War over more trivial reasons than what this war would be over.

    It does not matter if Trump would do it or not; his capacity to do so if he wished is there and they know it. That is why they keep wanting him to say he would and get hysterical when he didn’t.

    For what it’s worth, I predicted back in January that a disputed election could cause a civil war just as it did in Spain in the 1930s.

    https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/01/27/civil-war/

  80. DeNihilist says:

    As high as 20% a couple of weeks ago, now Trumps Black support has settled in at 15-16%. 10 points higher then Romney. Has not been this high since Nixon in ’60.

    Interesting…

  81. DeNihilist says:

    Don’t really know if this is truly “anonymous” or not, but intriguing –

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feeriker: As has been observed in these parts regularly, the women who scream loudest and most frequently about “RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE Culture!!!!!!!!!!!” are the women who are sexually invisible to men.

    To which feminists will retort: “Rape is NOT about sex — It’s about power!”

    Which never made sense to me. Of course rape is about sex. Yet everyone in media and academia roboticly repeats the above talking point, without ever having sat down and thought about it.

  83. Höllenhund says:

    @thedeti @Novaseeker

    Can you name any Democratic politician who’d have more chance as a presidential candidate than Clinton?

    Can you name any Republican politician who’d have more chance as a presidential candidate against Clinton?

  84. GordonBombay says:

    I can’t help but laugh every time I see an alt-right man point to Trump as some kind of alpha. He isn’t, he’s a guy that is aping the behavior, while doing everything he can to point out the excesses of the conservatives. Look at how he carries himself, there’s an element of “Try Hard” with the guy. From the former whore that he picked as a wife(A real alpha would never marry Melania, they would marry a woman with some virtue), to his inability to keep his mouth shut when doing so would benefit him, he lacks a lot of the traits one would associate with the archetype. Let’s be honest, this all feels like a poorly written wrestling storyline, because there’s no way that this election is being conducted on the level. You have Hillary Clinton, a candidate that is unlikable to damn near everyone outside of her base, but instead of running anyone worth a damn, the GOP managed to pick the ONE person she could beat. I don’t think Hillary could have beaten anyone else in that candidate pool. Just remember, the Trump coalition was going to vote for the GOP candidate anyway, you can’t win on that 15-20% of the electorate alone, when the other 80% loathes your candidate.

    Remember, the only difference between Trump and Clinton is that Trump puts his crap out for all to see. Other than that, they’re the same garbage. Donald Trump is just as likely to crap on your constitutional rights. It’s amazing that people aren’t running towards third party, or write in candidates at this point, but then again: The two party system has convinced voters that voting for the “Lesser of Two Evils” is a good thing, instead of what it truly is, voting for evil. George Washington was right, political parties are anathema to true democracy.

  85. scientivore says:

    A “Pleasant Trump Supporter” brigade could indeed make a difference. Or, on the flip side, “Nastyass Honeybadgers For Trump” would work too. Either extreme would be good rhetoric.

  86. anon2 says:

    Pleasant Trump Supporter sounds like milk toast.
    Nastyass Honeybadger is cringe-inducing. It says, “too much”.

  87. anon2 says:

    “Can you name any Republican politician who’d have more chance as a presidential candidate against Clinton?”

    I think Kasich would have won easily. He would have had all the backing of key Republicans, and no one who is a never-Hillary would vote for Hillary. This makes up a huge part of Trump’s base. I think he’s bringing people out to the polls who otherwise would stay home, but I also think that applies to both sides.

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Can it get more “nasty” that this?

    Wimmin training, videoing, and using little girls to curse and scream for feminism.

    They’re ruining these little girls, early on. Raising them to be bitter and angry and mean and nasty.

  89. tsotha says:

    The man puts his own name in huge letters on everything he builds.

    Heh heh. And even things he doesn’t build.

  90. Feminist Hater says:

    Republicans will never win an election with the same type of politicians they used before. Democrat lite. They can never win an election by playing by the Dem handbook, the Dems will merely hit them over the head with it. Trump is good, make no mistake about it. The changes seen in this election, the full on attacks, the truth coming to the fore, how can people see this as anything but what was absolutely necessary in American Politics? Seriously, Trump has is faults, he might be an ego maniac but his ego has done more for those sick and tired of the same mindless slow walk to the death of the Republic than anyone since World War Two.

    Who the heck cares if he is a plant, it doesn’t matter anymore, who cares if Hilary wins, it doesn’t matter anymore. They better hope Trump actually wins for the backlash is now gaining momentum.

  91. anon2 says:

    “Can it get more “nasty” that this?”

    Nope. And every single one of the is a Hillary supporter.
    The key is to reaching the undecided ones, or ones who think Hillary and Trump are both awful, but they can be persuaded to vote for the deplorable over the unthinkable.

  92. anon2 says:

    Scott Adams most recent write-up is so good, it almost brings a tear to the eye.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party
    “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.

    Truth.

  93. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Have you been following the Rolling Stone rape hoax law suit? You can’t make this crap up!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/25/jackie-throws-rolling-stone-reporter-bus-video-deposition/

    The WaPo reports that:

    “Jackie said during the taped deposition that she stands by the account she gave Rolling Stone and The Post in 2014 and believed it was true at the time. But she also testified that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has memory loss and can no longer recall specific details.
    …..
    ‘When Sabrina told me my experience was going to be the focal point in the article, I was uncomfortable with that’, Jackie said. ‘I was feeling scared and overwhelmed and unsure of what to do.’”

    Experience? I think she misspelled fantasy. Also, note that they’re STILL protecting the hoaxter’s identity. Jazz Shaw writes:

    “From the beginning Jackie has been crystal clear in the details she provided in her various accusations. Now, when the matter is being dragged out in a courtroom, she’s suddenly fuzzy on the details. Also, the idea that Erdely pressured her into participating seems implausible at best. If anything, Jackie seems to be pitching the idea that she’s been victimized all over again, this time by Rolling Stone.”

    No matter what happens, “Jackie” is ALWAYS someone’s victim. Finally, from Jazz Shaw again:

    “Does that make Jackie crazy or in unrepentant liar? For my money, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.”

    I vote for “unrepentant liar”.

  94. anon2 says:

    It’s better not to put a face and identity on Jackie. That would identify her as the lone crazy, and there’s a much larger lesson in all this that needs to be understood.
    “Jackies” surround us.

  95. Novaseeker says:

    Can you name any Democratic politician who’d have more chance as a presidential candidate than Clinton?

    Can you name any Republican politician who’d have more chance as a presidential candidate against Clinton?

    On the GOP side, Kasich could have been pretty effective in a national election. His problem was that he wasn’t appealing enough to the base to win primaries, and the people who would have supported him were busy supporting Cruz and Rubio for too long. Cruz and Rubio basically fucked up the Republican primaries as well by essentially splitting the “non-Trump” base between three candidates (Cruz, Rubio and Kasich), which allowed Trump to get more votes than any other candidate, but less than 50% until much later on. By the time they realized this, there wasn’t any space left for any one of them to actually get enough delegates to defeat Trump, which is when the GOP blogosphere started going crazy with fantasies about how to prevent Trump from being nominated regardless of the primary results and so on. It doesn’t look to me like an inside job, honestly, but anything is possible, I guess.

    On the Democratic side, I think Sanders would have had much, much more enthusiastic support than Clinton does. On the other hand, there are a good number of people who would walk over to the GOP rather than vote for someone like Sanders, as well, so not necessarily a stronger candidate overall than Clinton, despite her negatives. The other “normal” Dems all stayed out of the race, as we know.

    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.

    Well, except that the reason why she can say that and get away with it is because almost half the country agrees with her. That’s really the issue. That segment of the population really *does* think that much of the rest of the country is “deplorable” junk — wasted humans that they would rather not be here. Where I live in the DC region, it’s obviously the epicenter of that kind of thinking, but it’s true whether the people in question are right or left — they all share a visceral disgust of “those people”, and when she used the word “deplorables” she was using more incendiary rhetoric than they usually use in public, but the concept resonated deeply with most of the people in that set. It’s a dog whistle, but it’s a class-based one: i.e., if you are in a certain educated segment of the population, you may be conservative, you may even be a Republican but you certainly aren’t one of “those people”, are you??? And the answer will be very clear from most of that group: No, we’re not like “those people” are, because they’ve always despised those people anyway. I mean look at Mitt Romney — he wouldn’t use the same rhetoric, but it’s almost certain that he’s thought the same thing that she was when she was saying that, and he comes from the other side of the coin politically from Clinton. The social class issues around Trump are “huge”, precisely because he kind of pits the SWPL whites against the Budweiser whites. And you can dog whistle that divide very easily, because the last thing a SWPL, regardless of political leanings, wants is to be associated in any way with Budweiser whites — that is their “other” group, against which they self-define (“I’m white, but not that kind of of white ….”). It’s what she was doing there — she was using very incendiary rhetoric, which may have undermined what she was trying to do, but really what she was doing was blowing the dog whistle for SWPL Repubs to cross the aisle for her because of “those people”.

  96. feeriker says:

    Wimmin training, videoing, and using little girls to curse and scream for feminism.

    They’re ruining these little girls, early on. Raising them to be bitter and angry and mean and nasty.

    In my future “benign dictatorship,” “mothers” who “raise” daughters in this way wouldn’t kep them for very long. Matter o’ fact, single mothers wouldn’t be keeping their children at all. Nor would they be able to have any more after popping out the first one.

  97. Lost Patrol says:

    Can it get more “nasty” that this?

    Would like to say no. That surely you have found the maximum preschool training example for future nasty girls. But there’s probably more to come…

  98. Otto says:

    Michael Moore has enosed Donald Trump.

    I heard two minutes of his speech on the radio driving in. He laid out with clarity and profanity exactly why the economically left behind should vote Trump. He even took a swipe at Obamacare.

    Yet another example of why this election is so unpredictable. Normal alliances have been tossed out.

  99. average chump says:

    It sounds like there are a lot of defeated folks in this thread, especially @freeriker and @anon with their gay conspiracy theories. I think I even read somewhere above that “If Donald hadn’t of pissed off so many people” or something like that, then he would’ve stood a chance. Jesus. You have to really be a weak-kneed faggot to believe that – or a cuck who doesn’t care about the United States of America and who doesn’t care about winning.

    It needs to be understood that while yes, everyone hates Hillary Clinton, assuming you are of a liberal bent, it doesn’t fucking matter. You’re still going to vote for her anyway. Liberals stay together, even if they hate the other liberal. It’s clear from this thread that conservatives do not.

    We’re actually at a distinct point in time where conservative principles stand a chance of winning and having a century long impact on this country, where Political Correctness may be smashed and where liberal ideals will be forced back on their heels. This election will decide the next set of Supreme Court Justices and it will decide the overall culture of our country. But its clear that a few people here really don’t care about that and instead want to remain beaten down and singled out — its like a fetish or something.

    Matter of fact, I knew this one guy in college who was a total loser – he wasn’t smart, wasn’t nifty, wasn’t creative, wasn’t good looking, wasn’t fun – and everyone picked on him, and instead of ever doing anything about it, he kind of just intentionally put himself in situations where people would continue making fun of him over and over again. It turned out that he actually got a kick out of being made fun of because it gave him attention, so he never bothered to improve himself. This guy reminds me of some folks in this thread – pussy footing faggots, with weak knees and no desire to win.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    The Question@ October 25, 2016 at 11:33 pm:
    “For what it’s worth, I predicted back in January that a disputed election could cause a civil war just as it did in Spain in the 1930s.”

    I don’t see anybody killing and dying for Trump anytime soon. Even his supporters neither know nor care if he intends to keep his word. That isn’t the leadership that will spontaneously reform the Continental Army.

  101. anon2 says:

    “I don’t see anybody killing and dying for Trump anytime soon. Even his supporters neither know nor care if he intends to keep his word. That isn’t the leadership that will spontaneously reform the Continental Army.”

    LOL touche. But it isn’t so much about Trump as legitimacy of government.
    I can imagine election-related shenanigans from the bullying side. It’s already clear from the leaks this is a modus operandi for that party.
    All it would take is a few calls. Bomb threats in key Trump-centric communities and so forth. Then what happens?

  102. anon2 says:

    I mean, bomb threats on November 8th, as a way to clear the polls and keep people at home.

  103. thedeti says:

    Nova, hollenhund:

    Agree with Nova, more or less. Couple of things to add.

    Kasich could have done well in a national election. The problem in the primaries is that he’s a conventional Midwestern politician who didn’t appeal to the base enough because

    –he was and is perceived as a part of the GOP elite power structure, regardless of whether that’s true or not

    –he wasn’t willing to go on the attack. He was running an old style presidential primary campaign circa 1992/96. He was the Bob Dole of this campaign season.

    –he might not believe the “deplorables” bit, but he wouldn’t have been willing to respond to it forcefully.

    On the “basket of deplorables” bit and the bullying of Democrat/liberal opponents: Yes, half the country believes that. But the GOP power structure believes it too. The RNC, its elected officeholders, the visible conservative pundits, party elder statesmen, and party operatives in and around DC believe it too, even if they wont’ say it publicly. They don’t live like the GOP rank and file. They attend wine and brie parties. They are wealthy. They haven’t worked a real job in years. They live well off, drawing government salaries and pensions, and receiving “consulting” fees and payments for speaking engagements. (At least Walter Mondale went home to Minneapolis and worked as rainmaker for a silk stocking firm. A rainmaker might not bill a lot, but you have to get results. You have to show up and bring in the clients and the money so the service partners and associates can service them.)

    They socialize with liberals and Democrats, and are friends with them. They claim to be pro life but are in fact pro choice. They willingly go out and act as fall guy when it comes time to campaign. They’re They identify as conservative GOP; but actually live their lives like liberal Democrats. People like Orrin Hatch, Joe Scarborough, Michael Smerconish, Ann Coulter, Bob and Elizabeth Dole, most moderate GOP Senators and Congressmen, and even Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina are examples. Ted Cruz could be, except that he seems quite willing and happy to piss off his Senate colleagues.

    So that’s why Clinton can get away with saying “basket of deplorables”. Because deep down, the GOP elite believes it too.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    anon2 @ 9:16 am:
    “I mean, bomb threats on November 8th, as a way to clear the polls and keep people at home.”

    Are you serious? “Breaking news, terrorists of unidentified skin color and motivation have made credible threats to attack every single polling place where Trump is expected to win. Police strongly advise all white men in the United States to stay home and not vote.”

  105. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Today is Intersex Awareness Day.

    The U.S. State Dept has issued a press release in honor of IAD: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/10/263578.htm

    On the occasion of Intersex Awareness Day, the United States stands in solidarity with intersex persons around the world.

    We recognize that intersex persons face violence, discrimination, stigma, harassment, and persecution on account of their sex characteristics, which do not fit binary notions of typical male or female bodies….

  106. anon2 says:

    “Are you serious? “Breaking news, terrorists of unidentified skin color and motivation have made credible threats to attack every single polling place where Trump is expected to win. Police strongly advise all white men in the United States to stay home and not vote.””

    I don’t recall saying an attack on every single polling place where Trump is expected to win. There only have to be enough to give a strong hint of illegitimacy to the process.
    This requires no extreme of absurdity nor rocket science.
    In a landslide election with a strong candidate, it would matter less. With a population this divided it would matter a great deal.

  107. The Question says:

    @ Gunner Q

    “I don’t see anybody killing and dying for Trump anytime soon. Even his supporters neither know nor care if he intends to keep his word. That isn’t the leadership that will spontaneously reform the Continental Army.”

    That is just it. This election really has nothing to do with Trump, nor would any conflict resulting from it. A civil war would be fought, consciously or not, over a myriad of unresolved conflicts that have persisted in this country for decades, if not centuries.

    Despite his enormous ego, he and Hillary are merely catalysts for this potential fight. People may not like the way the line is drawn, but that is how the line is drawn. The assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand started World War I, but I doubt a single soldier from any side enlisted for reasons have anything to do with his death. Nor did his murder really have anything to do with why the war started in the first place. It was the spark that lit up the kindling Europe had piled together for decades.

    That is why this election concession issue has been raised at two separate debates. We can speculate about Trump’s intent all we want, but at the end of the day if his ability to create a constitutional crisis did not exist, then it would be a moot point.

  108. Hank Flanders says:

    Novaseeker

    Cruz and Rubio basically fucked up the Republican primaries as well by essentially splitting the “non-Trump” base between three candidates (Cruz, Rubio and Kasich), which allowed Trump to get more votes than any other candidate, but less than 50% until much later on.

    Cruz was Trump’s only real competitor, so I don’t see how one can claim with a straight face that Cruz had any part in screwing up the primary, considering SOMEBODY had to compete against Trump. It was the other jokers in the race like Kasich who had no substantial support who screwed up the primary (if it can rightly be said that anyone did). In fact, Kasich chose to stay in and siphon off votes even after he clearly had no mathematical way of winning. At least Rubio had the sense to exit the race when it was clear the math wasn’t on his side.

    VFM_7916,

    Everything I knew would happen if Trump got nominated has happened and worse. After the media dug up dirt on Herman Cain in the 2012 election, I knew Trump wasn’t going to do well with the media thrashing that was coming this time. However, the media didn’t want Cain to be the nominee, so they trashed him during the primary. (Some might argue that the Republican establishment ruined Cain, which I guess could be partially true, but I don’t see any reason to think it was confined to that, as both Democrats and establishment Republicans had plenty of reason to see him as a threat).

    Anyway, the media wanted Trump to be the nominee, because they knew some people would vote against him based on his personality alone, regardless of the issues, so the media helped Trump during the primary only so that they could trash and ruin his campaign after he was the nominee. The media knew Trump had sufficient skeletons to dig up, and they were waiting for the right time to bring them out. I know people claim that lack of political experience is what makes Trump so strong, and it did help him get this far, but if he doesn’t win, then his strength in the primary will have meant nothing, anyway.

    Also, who cares if Cruz is a “cuckservative?” I don’t think people should have voted against Cruz based on the fact that he’s a “cuckservative” any more than I think people should have vote against Trump based on the fact that he is (or was) a jerk. Cruz a proven constitutional conservative who was simply the stronger candidate to put up against Hillary Clinton, so yeah, I definitely think Cruz’s background of plowing through with his principles, despite being disliked by both the leftist media and establishment Republicans is proof he would have withstood the media firestorm better than Trump has. By the way, I’m more offended at being described with a hashtag than I am at the “cuckservative” label. (I hate twitter).

    TL;DR: I’m sure the media would have tried to trash Cruz, too, but he’s simply not an easy target like Trump is (and like I anticipated Trump would be), and unlike Trump, Cruz is an effective debater who knows politics and how to fight back against media and political scrutiny. Further, the Republicans should have had this race in the bag after eight years of Obama, with lying, criminal Hillary who most see as untrustworthy and who’s so out of touch with voters that she complained about being “dead broke,” despite having millions of dollars in assets as the current competitor. In addition, a Republican was due to win, anyway just based on historical patterns alone. Republicans screwed this election up by nominating Trump, but regardless, I want Trump to win, because he’s all we’ve got at this point.

  109. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    I’m thankful Trump was nominated if for no other reason than to expose the kabuki theater of the Republican establishment. I’m voting for him, because I know what to expect from the others. I want to find out what his administration will do.

    If he loses? I’ve made a promise to myself to stop following the news, withdraw from culture to the extent practicable, and wait to see who ends up strung from the lampposts. Depending on who’s up there, I’ll either continue keeping my head down and wait for the midnight knock, or reengage and help rebuild.

    Regardless, no more shit sandwiches. No more McCains, no more Romneys, and no more Kasichs. So long as the kabuki continues, I’m out.

  110. Anon says:

    Wimmin training, videoing, and using little girls to curse and scream for feminism.

    This is why Islam, instead of of indiscriminate terrorism, should instead adopt a strict marketing campaign while keeping violence to a minimum (and very precise). They would then get a lot of traction here…

  111. Novaseeker says:

    So that’s why Clinton can get away with saying “basket of deplorables”. Because deep down, the GOP elite believes it too.

    Yes, that’s exactly right. They’re the same class. It’s a class issue between whites. Certainly here in DC, even among non-operative types, they’re almost all similar SWPLs whether they are dems or repubs. They have more in common with each other than they do with the deplorables, even if the deplorables are repubs or plan to vote repub. It’s a class identity issue. It was the same when Buchanan went populist in the 90s — the difference in 2016 is that there are many, many more disaffected white guys who are not SWPLs than there were in 1996, due to ongoing social and economic changes as well as increased awareness due to the ballooning of the internet during that 20- year span. Buchanan was too early. A Buchanan type figure in 2016 — i.e., someone with the populist fire but who is not Donald Trump — would have landslided, probably, in 2016. A key issue is whether such a someone emerges in the aftermath of 2016.

  112. thedeti says:

    “A Buchanan type figure in 2016 — i.e., someone with the populist fire but who is not Donald Trump — would have landslided, probably, in 2016.”

    Probably. Buchanan would have acted much less the buffoon; most people on the left and right take him seriously, and he would have come off as presidential enough.

    But there’s been a huge leftward shift in the last 30 years. The left would have no problem painting Buchanan as a racist, sexist, and all other kids of ists just by pointing at his writings. And those kinds of attacks have proven quite effective, because half the country believes pretty much everything they hear from Democrats and their shills in the MSM.

  113. Tam the Bam says:

    To people my age it means this ..

  114. feeriker says:

    Cruz a proven constitutional conservative

    You ARE joking, right?

  115. feeriker says:

    Buchanan would have acted much less the buffoon; most people on the left and right take him seriously, and he would have come off as presidential enough.

    But there’s been a huge leftward shift in the last 30 years. The left would have no problem painting Buchanan as a racist, sexist, and all other kids of ists just by pointing at his writings.

    “Buchanan the Populist” could never be a credible figure in any case simply due to the fact that this guy has spend his entire life, both personal and professional, InsideTheBeltway[TM], has been part of the GOP Establishment for his entire adult life, and has nothing socially or economically in common with the Average Joes and Janes to whom he would have to sell his Populist schtick.

    Pat the Populist is akin to Bill (Clinton) the Baptist if Slick Willie were to “suddenly have a religious conversion” and try to sell himself as a pastor. Nobody would buy it based on his past.

    And those kinds of attacks have proven quite effective, because half the country believes pretty much everything they hear from Democrats and their shills in the MSM.

    Yes, and because that’s the case this country is pretty much thoroughly screwed no matter what happens. If at least 50 percent of “adult” Amoricons still really believe what comes from the mouths and pens of the left-wing Lamestream Media even after all of the evidence of their systematic lying and fabrication, then there really isn’t anything that can be done except to wait for the inevitable collapse and let the Social Darwinist tsunami do its gene pool-cleaning magic.

    Again: if we were really honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that this country DESERVES a Hitlary Clinton presidency: a three-term helping of it, if that were possible.

  116. Anon says:

    Remember that most of our governance institutions were started long before even television, let alone mass media (Abraham Lincoln or even Harry Truman could simply not win the Presidency today).

    If I had the power, the reformed needed are :
    i) Shrink the federal government by 75% (and hence lower taxes by 75%). This cannot happen under female suffrage, of course.
    ii) Failing i), relocate the nation’s capital to what the population center of the US is likely to be for the next century, which is to say, somewhere in Missouri or Oklahoma. DC was the middle of the country in 1776 when we had 13 states, but too many DC memes (like black vs. white race relations) are just too irrelevant to the West Coast. For one thing, black issues are overdiscussed in the US while Mexican-American and Asian issues are underdiscussed.
    iii) The Presidency needs to be a council of 5 people. That is the only way to prevent it from becoming too much of an American Idol contest. It worked before the age of mass media, but now, a council of 5 people, where the majority decides the policy, is needed. It also reduces the celebrity factor of the whole thing, plus the ability of a former Democrat President to make $300M plus from speeches, and the Clinton’s pay-for-play corruption. It will also diminish the importance of the ‘first lady’ as well, as now there are five at any given time.
    iv) The council of five keeps rotating out members via term limits, bringing new members in. The council is chosen from governors, senators, and private sector executives as appropriate, and is voted on by congress, rather than directly by the people (so it actually IS decided by the electoral college).

    Those are some ideas of reforms. Note that other countries have had to reset their systems many times. We have had it good for a long time, so Americans just don’t think about the need for reforms/resets…

  117. Isa says:

    @anon
    I believe in a much simpler solution, give the same citizenship test we give to aliens in order to gain a voter registration card. You can add it as part of drivers ed, senior year of hs, whatever. It is 100 questions that you memorize, and very, very easy. Since we already give it to all races, “genders”, and income levels, no issues with racism, sexism etc.

    Requiring a small amount of knowledge of government before voting is not unreasonable.

  118. feeriker says:

    Requiring a small amount of knowledge of government before voting is not unreasonable.

    Guaranteed that if you were to implement such a test to-day, picking any random 100 people out of the general population as test subjects, the results would be so horrifying that TPTB would immediately bury both the results AND the test, neither to ever be seen again. The failure rate would be at least 95 percent, probably closer to 99 percent.

  119. Hank Flanders says:

    feeriker

    You ARE joking, right?</em

    Nope, I looked up his voting record, as I always try to do before casting my vote. I would have looked up Trump’s, but he didn’t have one.

  120. Isa says:

    @feeriker
    It actually is a 30% failure rate. Sad when an amnestied alien who gained citizenship knows more about the government than an adult with 13 years of public schooling. Perhaps that is on purpose.

  121. feeriker says:

    Nope, I looked up his voting record, as I always try to do before casting my vote. I would have looked up Trump’s, but he didn’t have one.

    Hank, please explain how Ted Cruz –or indeed ANY sitting member of either house of the current federal Congress– is even remotely a “Constitutional Conservative,” in the plain-English understanding of that term. I’m talking about the Constitution of the United States of America here, just to be clear.

    [[Getting the popcorn bucket ready for what ought to be a very entertaining response.]]

  122. Hank Flanders says:

    However, feeriker, I do sometimes change my opinion when presented with new evidence. If I’m wrong, and Cruz had me fooled, you’re welcome to point out how, although I have a feeling that since Cruz is no longer running, it’s hardly worth getting into in detail at this point. I will say, though, that he lost me some when he chose Fiona as his running mate, but his campaign was basically over at that point, anyway.

  123. Hank Flanders says:

    *Fiorina

  124. Hank Flanders says:

    feeriker,
    Hank, please explain how Ted Cruz –or indeed ANY sitting member of either house of the current federal Congress– is even remotely a “Constitutional Conservative,” in the plain-English understanding of that term. I’m talking about the Constitution of the United States of America here, just to be clear. Hank, please explain how Ted Cruz –or indeed ANY sitting member of either house of the current federal Congress– is even remotely a “Constitutional Conservative,” in the plain-English understanding of that term. I’m talking about the Constitution of the United States of America here, just to be clear.

    [[Getting the popcorn bucket ready for what ought to be a very entertaining response.]]

    Haha, OK, well, this should keep you entertained for hours.
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm

  125. feeriker says:

    Haha, OK, well, this should keep you entertained for hours.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm

    Yes, Hank, I’m sure that Ted’s political vanity page could keep me entertained for hours, but there’s no need for me to waste life-hours like that in order to torpedo any claims of Ted’s “Constitutional conservatism.” Within 15 seconds of scanning the page my eyes fell on the “Cruz on Drugs” section, which revealed the following:

    Click here for 6 full quotes on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

    Let’s see what happens in Colorado with legalization. (Nov 2015)
    Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
    2014: federal enforcement; 2015: let states experiment. (Mar 2015)
    I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it’s their right. (Feb 2015)
    Let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana. (Feb 2015)
    I foolishly smoked pot when young, but never since. (Feb 2015)

    That, Hank, flushes the “Constitutional conservative” claim right down the commode – especially the second item on his bullet list. In fact, it wasn’t even necessary for me to read any of Ted’s silly bullet points. The only thing that ANY genuine “Constitutional conservative” would say following such a subject line is a variation of the following:

    “Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted by the states ANY power or authority whatsoever to restrict the production, sale, distribution, use, consumption, or any other matter pertaining to narcotics or any other substance. As such, it is my goal to abolish immediately ALL federal laws pertaining to narcotics and to disband all federal agencies dedicated to the unconstitutional prohibition or regulation of such substances. All matters pertaining to this issue are the province of the individual states, not the federal government.”

    THAT, Hank, is what a REAL Cc would have said. But that is clearly NOT Ted’s view of things.

    I know that I could uncover additional evidence within his positions on other issues, but it isn’t necessary. Ted is as contemptuous/ignorant of the Constitution as the other 99 members of the Senior Criminal Douchebag Assembly.

    Nice try, but no cigar.

  126. Hank Flanders says:

    Uh…feeriker, how is what Cruz said contrasted with the quote you made? Your second quote essentially states drugs should be regulated by the states, not the federal government, does it not? How is that any different from “let states experiment,” “I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it’s their right, or “let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana?”

  127. Hank Flanders says:

    Also, what second item in the list are you referring to, the one where Cruz said to LOWER minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs?

  128. Hank Flanders says:

    By the way, you’re showing your bias by not actually looking at Cruz’s stances on the other issues and by making the presumption that a political fact page that is not linked to Ted Cruz or any particular candidate (to my knowledge) is a “vanity page” for Ted Cruz.

  129. Lord Rofl says:

    “But its clear that a few people here really don’t care about that and instead want to remain beaten down and singled out — its like a fetish or something.”

    Cuckoldry. They get off on insult and humiliation. On losing. These cucks wouldn’t vote for Jesus himself.

    “Did you hear the nasty things he said to that that innocent sex worker? Well, I have two daughters, and they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without ever, EVER worrying about being turned into pillars of salt.”

    “I can’t vote for a guy whose dad thinks Gomorrah was okay. No way. His crazy disciples are all misogynists, too.”

    “So crude and antisemitic. I mean, cursing and throwing tables around? I wish I could vote for Pythagoras.”

    “It’s obvious he’s a shill for the Sanhedrin. I knew it from the beginning. There’s no way he’d ever have let them nail him to that cross, otherwise. They’re all in it together.”

  130. feeriker says:

    Also, what second item in the list are you referring to, the one where Cruz said to LOWER minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs?

    Yes. The Cc position on this issue is that there should be no minimum or mandatory sentences – indeed, no sentences AT ALL for anything drug-related. That Cruz takes the position that there should be any federal penalties for any drug laws at all nullifies the rest of his rhetoric. Then again, pandering to “law and order” cuckservatives trumps principles for careerist GOP pols. They don’t stay elected otherwise. That’s because the GOP base is as ignorant/contemptuous of the Constitution as the libtard Democrats.

    By the way, you’re showing your bias by not actually looking at Cruz’s stances on the other issues and by making the presumption that a political fact page that is not linked to Ted Cruz or any particular candidate (to my knowledge) is a “vanity page” for Ted Cruz.

    Hank, I’m biased against ALL politicians: Republicrat, Demopublican, “Independent,” “Libertarian,” all of them. With the sole exception of Ron Paul in my lifetime, they have ALL shown themseves to be lying, thieving, self-aggrandizing scumbags who care not one dried rat turd about you, me, their country, or anyone but themselves and their own selfish ambitions, for which public office is merely the means to the end. They have, as a bottomfeeder class, perfected the art of spewing Mount Everest-sized piles of reeking bullshit in an attempt to convince the Lower Orders that they are the polar opposite of what they obviously are. That nothing has changed in favor of those they govern, despite decades of promises to “fix” what ails the country (i.e., a travesty of their own creation), should have the majority of those Lower Orders by now chasing them through the streets with hemp, torches, and shotguns in hand. Instead, the rubes continue to beg for more all-you-can-eat helpings of mendacious bullshit, their appetites apparently insatiable.

    So yes, I am “biased” – against not only politicians, but the people who keep insisting on playing the “election game” and perpetuating our torture by continuing to inflict these politicians’ criminal, predatory existence upon their fellow man (my question following Election Day, to anyone who brings it up, will be “what have I done to you, or anyone else, to deserve [victorious SPiC candidate’s name]?”).

    What I said about Teddy Cruz is, for all practical purposes, applicable to any or all of the rest of today’s pols. I don’t know if bullshit is a Baskin Robbins commodity (i.e., there are 31-plus flavors of it), but I hope so; the idea that so many people can be fooled for so long and so often by one flavor of bullshit has implications too horrifying to dwell on.

  131. Oscar says:

    More on “Jackie”: her friends characterize her as a habitual liar. Imagine my surprise!

    http://heatst.com/life/rolling-stone-trial-jackies-friends-portray-her-as-habitually-dishonest/

    And the media continues to protect her identity, despite knowing that the whole thing was a hoax.

  132. feeriker says:

    And the media continues to protect her identity, despite knowing that the whole thing was a hoax.

    We can only hope and pray that one of her “friends” (question: who would admit to being a “friend” of someone they describe as a “habitual liar?” Must be a female thing.) will soon out her.

  133. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    or indeed ANY sitting member of either house of the current federal Congress– is even remotely a “Constitutional Conservative,”

    No one is a constitutional conservative unless they see the injustice of child support, alimony, and false-rape accusations as THE biggest violations of basic constitutional rights in the US today.

    Unless opposing these things are their top issues, they are not about the Constitution at all.

    If Hank thinks Cruz is a Constitutional Conservative, he has revealed that he lets the left decide what boxes he thinks in, and hence is a tool.

    Again, unless someone can clearly see that the laws around CS, alimony, and false rape accusations are the single biggest violations of the basic rights in the Constitution of any first-world country, they don’t really get it.

  134. feeriker says:

    anon said:

    No one is a constitutional conservative unless they see the injustice of child support, alimony, and false-rape accusations as THE biggest violations of basic constitutional rights in the US today.

    Unless opposing these things are their top issues, they are not about the Constitution at all.

    If Hank thinks Cruz is a Constitutional Conservative, he has revealed that he lets the left decide what boxes he thinks in, and hence is a tool.

    Again, unless someone can clearly see that the laws around CS, alimony, and false rape accusations are the single biggest violations of the basic rights in the Constitution of any first-world country, they don’t really get it.

    In Teddy’s own words, courtesy of the link Hank provided.

    From the “Ted Cruz on Families & Children” section, the link “3 full quotes on families & children:”

    Hispanic values: faith, family & patriotism [That’s bullshit, but I digress and will leave discussion of this assertion for another post on another blog in the future, should Teddy ever distract us with his political presence and mendacity again. Question: why “Hispanic” family values and not “AMERICAN” family values? Do tell, Ted …]
    The values in our [Hispanic] community are faith, family, patriotism. I campaigned the same here in Houston or Dallas as I did in the Rio Grande Valley, defending conservative principles, telling my father’s story of coming to America with $100 dollars in his underwear, not speaking English, washing dishes, having hopes and dreams for the American dream.
    Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016

    Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism
    Cruz said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians: “Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party. There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,” Cruz said. “It is heartbreaking,” Cruz argued. “But it is so extreme, it is waking people up.”

    “We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was built,” he concluded.
    Source: TheHill weblog on 2015 Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition summit , Apr 25, 2015

    Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage
    Sen. Ted Cruz cast himself as a leading Republican opponent of same-sex marriage during an appearance before a crowd of evangelical Christians in Des Moines. Cruz described the ongoing shift toward legal recognition for gay couples as an “unrelenting assault on traditional marriage,” and castigated judges who have struck down prohibitions for “ignoring their oaths, ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.”

    The issue is one that Cruz said distinguishes him from other potential candidates in what looks to be a crowded 2016 presidential field. While others have de-emphasized or dropped altogether their opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, he would continue to make it a priority.

    Cruz delivered his speech to a crowd of about 200 Iowa religious leaders and their spouses behind closed doors in a hotel ballroom in Des Moines.

    As you can see, “Constitutional” Cuckservative Ted fixated on three issues that are nowhere within the Constitutional purview of the federal government. I defy Teddy (or his buddy Hank) to point to one section or clause in any Article of that document that delegates any authority whatsoever to the fedgov to deal with the topics of “family values,” “defending Judeo-Christian values,” or “defending ‘traditional’ marriage.”

    That aside, in all his ranting he breathed not one word about keeping families intact, nor about the fact that [His]-Fault Divorce, Child Support, and FedGov UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE in said activity is doing more to destroy families and prevent their formation than these other “safe” ills he chooses to fixate on. It figures, as the Cuckservative crowds to whom Ted pitched this mound of uni-flavored (and constitutionally irrelevant) BS probably included dozens, if not hundreds of divorced “conservative” feminist women who’ve frivorced at least one husband and are raking in cash and prizes accordingly while holding their children hostage from their ex-husbands. No way was he going to open his yap about any issue that would trigger their wrath.

  135. I meant to get back to this sooner, but I’ve just been busy. And I need to preface this discussion with the note that, going into the GOP primary, Trump was maybe my 4th choice. But I also had no clue the GOP would be that insanely incompetent. To the point I’ve been talking that Trump was the most likely President since Fall 2015. He read the election properly, it’s just a matter of getting over the line.

    Trump’s best rhetorical tactic has been to state what you’re thinking about someone and then making it stick. He’s destroyed everyone one-by-one with this tactic. He’s even ended Hillary’s political career during the 2nd debate, regardless of who wins the election. “Because you’d be in jail” is what everyone understands and she can never run away from it. (Aside from the fact she won’t live through a first term, except on life support.)

    But for all of the talk about the primary, you’re all missing what happened: Jeb! sucked up >100 million in funding. And did nothing in the Primary. That’s what gave Trump his major opening. There was no opening for anyone else with Establishment ties to rise to the top. In fact, Jeb! ‘s money sucking operation eliminated practically everyone else from the running. You either needed a specific power base or be a self-funder.

    Further, while it was obvious from the start, but the Podesta emails just complete confirm, there was no way to raise Hillary’s favorability rating. No amount of money could. (Same with Jeb!, ironically.) So, since Hillary was the obvious nominee from 2013, how were they going to operate? Easy: destroy the GOP Nominee. This election was never going to be about policy. It was going to be a full-court press by the Media to destroy the GOP nominee and that was the end of it. Do you honestly think the rest of them wouldn’t have folded?

    There’s a reason the “cuck” label is so damn powerful. The GOPe has no spine. None of them do. They’re at the beck and call of a small group of donors and, at the most basic level, everyone gets that. It’s the reason Trump could be run to the Right of the GOP field on Immigration and to the Left of the field on social policy. Because pounding on “Rule of Law” (which is what Immigration is about) and the “Economy is Terrible” are topics that poll in the high 70% range as important to voters. And because of the way the GOP field had boxed themselves in policy wise, it was really just a personality contest. Then, look what happened? Alpha wins. And the Alpha won.

    The attack paths of the 3 other possible nominees (Cruz, Rubio and Kasich) are also pretty easy to figure out.

    They were going to have video on some of the things Cruz had done with his father’s ministry. They’ve have spent the entire time painting him as a homophobe and you’d never hear the end of it. He’d be painted as this crazy religious nut and you’d have thought it as well. (Because his Father’s denomination actually is one of the nuttier ones.) Also, Cruz’s political instincts aren’t very good.

    Kasich would have been attacked in the way Romney was. He just doesn’t have much personal appeal outside of the Ohio GOP Machine. And his hard Open Borders turn would have lost him a massive amount of the normal GOP base support. He was pretty much a slightly more boring Bob Dole.

    Rubio is the harder nut to crack about how they’d have destroyed him. Enough that the Hillary campaign had the largest set of Oppo research on him. They’d have hit him on the affairs. (A real issue.) They’d have used surrogates in the GOP to push that Rubio was gay. (“Foamboy” – this isn’t too hard to track down.) And there was probably other events in FL that they knew about to attack him with.

    Though Rubio did himself in with 2 fairly specific choices: 1) the Gang of 8 and 2) insulting Trump’s penis. The “small hands” bit is a direct insinuation that Trump has a small Johnson. Trump is a New York-based brawler, and you expect him to just shrug that one off? It’s like the GOP field hadn’t actually paid attention to anything Trump had done the entire time.

    Because of people’s personal opinions about Trump, they lose sight of how he navigated the Primary. Because the GOPe was so damn stupid about Immigration, Trump was able to run hard to the Right on the one topic that polls well above 60% nationally. The 1 topic the GOP is supposed to be “better” on, and he could just dance around them on the topic. In an Insider-Outsider election, the let the Outsider run rings around them. They’re that damn incompetent.

  136. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feeriker: Question: why “Hispanic” family values and not “AMERICAN” family values?

    Cruz is signaling that Hispanic immigrants are natural conservatives. This is what conservatives want to hear.

    Cruz is playing more to conservatives than to Hispanics. Like George W. Bush (spoke Spanish) and Jeb Bush (married to a Latina), Cruz is signaling to conservatives that he can win because Hispanics like him.

  137. As for polling, it finally dawned on me that, even if a pollster isn’t trying to skew things (few aren’t), they’ve lost all relevancy factors. At this point, no polling can reflect the totality of anything. I’ll explain after I point something out.

    I wish Vox hadn’t pointed to this, so it doesn’t look like I’m borrowing from him. (I found it earlier.)
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Remington_PA_Oct_25th_2016.pdf

    The topline isn’t important here (Clinton +3 in PA). It’s the cross-tabs. And why I’ve been trying to get through to most of you that the Media is in full-on PsyOps mode.

    The important part, on page 4, is Trump is running at 29% with Blacks and 30% with Hispanics. If Trump is actually getting those numbers, we’re in Reagan-level Landslide territory.

    Let me repeat that. If the GOP candidate is pulling 30% of Blacks, then it’s the Trumpslide. I don’t expect that to hold (I figure 14-15% nationally, with turnout closer to 55%, which is the historic norm), but when people trumpet these polls, they look like idiots for not actually looking at the details.

    Further, there’s two big issues with polling this cycle, and it’s noticeably getting worse. 1) Response rates are so low, now, that polls are all but worthless. This isn’t 1985 anymore. 2) Non-college educated Whites have seemingly given up answering political polling.

    Much of the Pro-Hillary bias comes because they use huge College-educated Whites samples. But they also only seem to *get* those people to respond to polls. And Trump does weaker there for structural reasons: he’s not “their” type of candidate. Dear Lord, he actually wants to win and not just look good in a dog show.

    But, here’s the thing: you still have to vote for Hillary. And that’s an issue. Mind you, unheard of levels of voter fraud are very likely. And that every Media outlet is guilty of felony illegal coordination with the Hillary campaign. And we still don’t know how much damage the GOPe has done on the backside. And Hillary has to not have another episode caught on camera until Election day. And the Email server has to not drop. And Gary Johnson supposed “voters” have to actually vote for him.

    I’m predicting a D+2 election, now. I’ll come up with a closer prediction for the final numbers late next week. But I don’t expect Hillary to get over 45%.

  138. Oh, forgot to mention. Part of the polling issue with the college educated responding to polls at a much higher rate is that it isn’t a new issue. It’s been a trend for a while, and it probably is what made Romney seem to under-perform in 2012. Even well done polling can only capture what the pollster is looking for, so if they don’t know of something’s existence, they simply don’t see it.

    So the entire 2012 cycle simply couldn’t capture that Romney was weak with non-college educated Whites and that Millennials were still going to show up in decent numbers for Obama. Plus Black turnout was still at historic highs.

  139. feeriker says:

    Mind you, unheard of levels of voter fraud are very likely.

    Much more than just voter fraud; expect Third World/banana republic-class violence on election day from the Clintonistas and their enforcers. Seriously, I believe things have truly deteriorated to the point where the Establishment mask is going to just fall right off.

  140. @feeriker:

    The logical part of me fully understands the damage that can happen if we get an actual new “regime”. The emotional part of me looks forward to decorating cities with the corrupt. Literally.

    The downside of being intelligent, I guess.

    And I’ve mentioned Texas starts the secession process if Hillary wins. That isn’t a joke. It’s been polling high enough as it is. A stolen National Election and it’s going to end up being put on the ballot. Let alone the unpredictable other issues that would crop up.

  141. Hank Flanders says:

    feeriker

    Yes. The Cc position on this issue is that there should be no minimum or mandatory sentences – indeed, no sentences AT ALL for anything drug-related.

    I like how you ignored everything else I (and even YOU) pointed out about Cruz’s position of leaving drug issues to the states. Also, “lowering” it could very well be lowering it to nothing at all.

    Hank, I’m biased against ALL politicians: Republicrat, Demopublican, “Independent,” “Libertarian,” all of them.

    Obviously, we’re all biased, but it’s not possible to argue effectively about a subject unless you look at your opponent’s evidence, and you did the opposite of that by assuming that an unbiased, non-partisan fact page was a biased Cruz fan page.

  142. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Interesting article in The Atlantic about modern dating: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/dating-disrupted/501119/

    Focus is on a pair of female researchers. Their observations are often accurate, but their conclusions and interpretations are way off. As usual, these feminists conclude that the current situation is better for men than for women. Boo-hoo.

    Dating may have morphed into improv, but that hasn’t made matters easier for women. If anything, today’s sexual norms favor men.

    No, today’s sexual norms favor women and a few Alpha PUAs. It does not favor Betas or even marriage-minded Alphas.

    Women must cope with two intense time pressures: to make a good impression in a matter of seconds, and to pair off before the biological timer runs out. Now more than ever, they have to discipline their bodies and restrain their longings—avoid being “too fat, too loud, too ambitious, too needy,” in Weigel’s words.

    Really? I don’t see modern women engaged in too much self-restraint.

    Witt, too, is impatient with the failure of gender equality to create sexual equality. Even adventurous women, she notes, still take on the bulk of whatever emotional burden comes with casual sex—“trying to control attachment, pretending to enjoy something that hurt or annoyed them, defining sexiness by images they had seen rather than knowing what they wanted.”

    She’s looking for an empowered version of uninhibited sexuality, or free love, as it used to be called. Oddly, though, the free love she finds is rarely free. Witt mostly trains her attention on sexual interactions that are explicitly commercial. … She wants to know whether women who use sex to make money, or who exploit men for pleasure, somehow develop more sexual confidence, have a greater sense of sexual agency.

    So “exploiting” men leads to more “sexual confidence” and “sexual agency” for women? Imagine if a male academic has written so glowingly of men “exploiting” women.

  143. Novaseeker says:

    @Looking Glass —

    Well, it’s possible that the polls are simply wrong across the board for the reasons you state. If they are it will be interesting to see what happens on November 8. Stranger things have happened, in any case, like hanging and pregnant chads and so on.

    I expect that if Hillary does win, Trump will claim that it was due to fraud, whether this is apparent or not. There is, of course, always some degree of fraud in every election, so there’s always something plausible to point at here and there, but unless the election is as close as in 2000, it may be a hard sell that the fraud was outcome determinative. In any case, he would likely claim fraud anyway, either to trigger an outright constitutional crisis, or prolong a civil war in the GOP, or a bit of both.

  144. Hank Flanders says:

    anon
    No one is a constitutional conservative unless they see the injustice of child support, alimony, and false-rape accusations as THE biggest violations of basic constitutional rights in the US today.

    Unless opposing these things are their top issues, they are not about the Constitution at all.

    While there may very well be (and I believe are) injustices surrounding those issues, to my knowledge, those are still issues for the individual states, not the federal government. Too many people conflate “unjustified” with “unconstitutional,” which gives us the “constitutional right” to an abortion or the “constitutional right” to compel any state of your choosing to issue you a marriage license.

  145. feeriker says:

    Interesting article about gender dynamics in the ROK:

    http://www.koreabang.com/2016/features/the-rise-of-radical-korean-feminist-community-megalia.html

    So … Korean women are managing to make themselves even more obnoxious than they already are by embracing “radical” feminism (gotta love that term; as if there’s such a things as “reactionary” feminism).

    That oughta work out well…

  146. Hank Flanders says:

    feeriker

    As you can see, “Constitutional” Cuckservative Ted fixated on three issues that are nowhere within the Constitutional purview of the federal government. I defy Teddy (or his buddy Hank) to point to one section or clause in any Article of that document that delegates any authority whatsoever to the fedgov to deal with the topics of “family values,” “defending Judeo-Christian values,” or “defending ‘traditional’ marriage.”

    I’ve read through your Ted Cruz citation three times (giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to lay out your case), and nowhere in there do I see Cruz mentioning anything about using the federal government to compel the states to behave in any way on those issues. Therefore, I challenge YOU to point out where he makes the argument that these issues are within the purview of the federal government. The constitutional position, and I believe Cruz’s position, is that these are matters that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government and should be left to the individual states. They’re salient issues for him, because leftists want to pretend that these ARE issues that are within the federal government’s jurisdiction. Is this really so difficult to see?

  147. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Concerning women in Korea–I should mention that what people do in the USA is highly influential on people elsewhere.

  148. Gunner Q says:

    Avraham rosenblum @ 10:57 am:
    “Concerning women in Korea–I should mention that what people do in the USA is highly influential on people elsewhere.”

    That’s more likely the fault of our technology than our culture. Most other peoples know we’re in serious decline but don’t realize the decline is driven by factors like the universal appeal of Tinder to female hypergamy.

  149. Novaseeker says:

    So “exploiting” men leads to more “sexual confidence” and “sexual agency” for women? Imagine if a male academic has written so glowingly of men “exploiting” women.

    Heh, the whole thing was whiny and a bit off the wall — basically complaining about not being able to get the alpha male they want, which is always the complaint, when it comes to women and the sex/marriage markets. That’s because women *are* at a disadvantage vis-a-vis such men. That’s not wrong. That small group of men is in very high demand and has real market power vis-a-vis most women, which most women resent the same way that most beta males resent the real market power that most women have vis-a-vis beta males. It’s an all-on war out there in the SM and MM, and women are just complaining that they don’t have market power in either market over the men they all want. Oh well.

    The rest of it was exploring some directions I think we will eventually see more of the chattering community explore in the years ahead, like denorm-ing monogamy in the context of committed relationships, demoting marriage to “de facto cuckolding” by making marriage about custody and children rather than sex and so on. These are all solutions to the fundamental problem female sexuality presents to women: how to get both AF and BB. Can’t get AF as husband, he has too much power to commit, can get BB for husband, but don’t want him for sex (“he’s a great dad, though!!”), so what do you do? Why you write about how marriage should move toward a “joint custodial venture for raising kids” so that you can get the Dad qualities of the BB while still having the uncommitted yet sexy ex with the AF. Voila, de facto cuckolding as the future solution to the equation of female sexuality, and its dual prongs.

  150. sarah conner says:

    It won’t work for them. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had ‘ordinary women’ tell me how much they hate working for other women. Nearly all of us have been tormented at one time or another by The Bitch Boss. These nasty power-women can hurt other women in ways your average evil male boss can only dream of. The days of Team Woman are gone, if they ever really existed. Now it’s the petty tyranny of evil women over the meek and Team Clinton represents every one of those nasty, back-stabbing, petty, spiteful, lying, ugly, power hags.

  151. Random Angeleno says:

    @sarah
    Can definitely corroborate that anecdotally: my ex-wife and the women in my family have all told me stories about the nasty and often covert office politicking initiated by the bossy bitch managers they ran across during their careers in various fields. All preferred working for men. Not surprisingly then, all dislike Hillary for they see in her the worst aspects of the bitch managers they worked for, hence they’re all voting for Trump. “Just look at her (Hillary)”, they have said to me.

    Regarding the polls, I’ll stick to what I said above, this has the look and feel of the Brexit election which was missed by the major polls in the UK. When the ground shifts and it’s not politically correct to recognize the shift, the polls are not going to be on the nose anymore.

  152. @Novaseeker:

    It’s a little more detailed than that. When we say the DNC & Hillary rigged the primary, it’s beyond just the dirty tricks with the Caucuses. (Which is civil and not criminal issues.) We’re talking about voting machines without paper trails showing extremely odd voting patterns and fairly clear digital manipulation. The “Bernie Bros” have spent a long while going through the data and there’s a fairly clear effort to simply steal the election via electronic voting.

    (The politicians that approved no-paper trail balloting needs to be… many things.)

    Also, the DNC Leaks were from a man named Seth Rich, who was clearly murdered for giving up the information to Wikileaks. So there’s a lot more information that we still don’t have.

  153. Hmm says:

    If you want to bait the Hillaryites more, use the hashtag #Hillbullies. Based on Scott Adams’ characterization of the Democrats and their followers as bullies: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party

    BTW, I also like the idea of the hashtag #StopDemBullies, but am not on Twitter.

  154. Höllenhund says:

    On the Democratic side, I think Sanders would have had much, much more enthusiastic support than Clinton does.

    Indeed his supporters were more enthusiastic on average. But the enthusiasm of your supporters doesn’t win elections. Sanders wasn’t going to have a chance against pretty much any Republican candidate. He’s a perfect target for all factions of Conservatism Inc. – social conservatives, neocons, libertarians. He’s not a serious opponent.

  155. Höllenhund says:

    I think Kasich would have won easily. He would have had all the backing of key Republicans, and no one who is a never-Hillary would vote for Hillary. This makes up a huge part of Trump’s base.

    McCain and Romney also had the backing of key Republicans, and probably the backing of the never-Hillary demographic as well. And they still lost.

  156. anon2 says:

    HH: “McCain and Romney also had the backing of key Republicans, and probably the backing of the never-Hillary demographic as well. And they still lost.

    Trump won over Romney and McCain for a similar reason that back in 1992 Perot split the conservative vote and Clinton won with forty-three percent.
    But this was split over even more people. If it were just Kasich versus Trump, the outcome would have been far different.

  157. BillyS says:

    If it were just Kasich versus Trump, the outcome would have been far different.

    I doubt that. I did not vote for Romney or McCain, but I will vote for Trump shortly (early voting and likely prior to this being visible). I would not vote for Kasich, even though I lived in his district in Ohio years ago and voted for him then. My political views have seriously matured since then.

  158. Emperius says:

    Too much Cruz policy talk on “conservatism” and no mention that the mother nail of the coffin is the fact that he is a Canadian-born individual. To be president, one must be born in the U.S. with parents being natural or naturalized at the time of his or her birth. This alone disqualified Cruz constitutionally and for me around Fall 2015. The cuckservative/mormon/big-gov-RINO/etc. crowd twisted, mis-interpreted the law, both constitutionally and the intentionally by the Federalist Papers. But let’s assume he was illegible for a second, the fact that he has the biggest stench of Bush/RINO Republicanism establishment trail he that played a sly, deceitful showman behavior in congress on trade deals and that it was “bad” while he would support it in secret instances. Nothing but a massive puppet of the CFR and Trilateral Commission, all big globalist/nwo garbage. Also, that he supposedly slept with 5 known mass media “journalists” all while other groups spinning the idea that he was gay along with Rubio, a well known method for elites to blackmail and control.

  159. Höllenhund says:

    Well, except that the reason why she can say that and get away with it is because almost half the country agrees with her. That’s really the issue. That segment of the population really *does* think that much of the rest of the country is “deplorable” junk — wasted humans that they would rather not be here. Where I live in the DC region, it’s obviously the epicenter of that kind of thinking, but it’s true whether the people in question are right or left — they all share a visceral disgust of “those people”, and when she used the word “deplorables” she was using more incendiary rhetoric than they usually use in public, but the concept resonated deeply with most of the people in that set.

    I recently heard on a right-wing podcast that Cracked ran yet another column on the Trump phenomenon. Here it is:

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    It’s surprisingly good, considering that it appears on a leftist liberal website and is written by a typical misandrist mangina asshole. I wasted a couple of minutes running through the comments. There are two main types of liberal responses:

    1. “I’ll start having sympathy for poor and middle-class white Trump supporters if they start voting Democrat.”

    Imagine the sheer outrage from these people if some right-wing journalist declared that he’ll start showing sympathy towards poor and middle-class urban blacks if they start voting Republican.

    2. “Poor and middle-class rural whites are in a shitty situation, but it’s all their fault, because they keep voting for the Republican shitbags who caused all these economic and social problems.”

    What if we held, say, the poor black residents of Detroit and Chicago to the same standards. They have voted Democrat for decades, but it’s obviously not helping them. Is it all their fault as well? Would these liberal commenters ever say something like that? Their double standards are pretty obvious.

  160. Oscar says:

    @ Höllenhund says:
    October 31, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    “I’ll start having sympathy for poor and middle-class white Trump supporters if they start voting Democrat.”

    Ironically, poor whites used to be a bastion of Democrat support. Many of the poor whites supporting Trump voted Democrat as recently as 2012.

  161. Pingback: Nasty gal’s nasty woman problem. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s