Via Patriot Retort, on a tip from TED.
Bernie is too much of kook for grownups, but some liberals say Shrillary isn’t kooky enough. What’s a Democrat New Hampshire primary voter to do? Simple: vote for John Kasich. He bills himself as the “right porridge,” midway between them.
Running as a Democrat gave him a lift in New Hampshire, but soon Kasich’s nose will point to the ground as his tail spins round and round. If a progressive wins the Republican nomination this year, it won’t be by admitting he is a progressive.
Via Weasel Zippers, on a tip from Torcer.
The Doritos ad was a welcome break from the torrent of heavy-handed moonbattery that dominated the Super Bowl proceedings.
NARAL fiends were furious at the ad for humanizing human babies:
— NARAL (@NARAL) February 8, 2016
According to liberal dogma, babies are to be depicted as inchoate blobs of nonhuman flesh up to the moment they are born. The surreal ad committed a thought crime through excessive realism:
Turns out, the image is more than just realistic. It’s actually real. (With computer-generated movement, of course). On the Doritos’ Super Bowl campaign website, we find the backstory inspiring the creator, an Australian man named Peter:
“Peter recently had his second child, Freddy, who’s now nine months old. When he was with his wife getting an ultrasound during the pregnancy, an idea popped into his head – wouldn’t it be funny to have a little fun in the hospital room, where everyone is supposed to remain poised, calm and collected. The baby in the ultrasound image is Freddy himself – of course with the help of a little camera magic.”
So the fetus that NARAL accused the commercial of “humanizing” – that’s a little boy named Freddy.
Don’t tell NARAL that the inchoate blob of flesh has been given a name. This further humanization of a baby might make their heads explode.
On tips from Torcer, TheChaoticStorm, seaoh, Shawn R, and JusttheTipHQ.
Some might say that blacks in today’s America are the most privileged people who ever lived, considering that they are generally not held accountable for their behavior, that they are granted every imaginable preference, that to criticize them is taboo, and that an endless cascade of other people’s money is showered upon them by the welfare state. Yet Sheila Jackson Lee isn’t the only one who knows what it is like to live as a slave. Consider the plight of the oppressed Whoopi Goldberg:
Whoopi Goldberg is reportedly displaying “antagonistic” behavior behind the set of The View, with some believing the actress is provoking the bosses of ABC to fire her.
An insider reportedly told Page Six that 60-year-old Goldberg gets a $5 million annual fee to lead the show’s panel, but the comedienne is said to be “at war with the management,” and that she is not putting in a lot of effort in her work nowadays.
Goldberg, who is now on her final year of a five-year contract, caused a stir last year when she allegedly paraded around, ranting how the network has treated her like a slave. “I’s a work for ABC, who is my master. I’s a slave to ABC. It’s ’12 Years a Whoopi’ at ABC,” referring to the film 12 Years a Slave.
The insider says she is trying to get fired. It might seem like a cushy job to spew infantile leftist nonsense for a few hours a week in exchange for $5 million, but…
The insider believes Goldberg is doing this to push execs of ABC to cut her from the program so she can be paid without doing her work. “She knows if they did fire her, they’d have to pay out her contract and she’d be paid $5 million for doing nothing.”
Doing nothing whatsoever for the $5 million: that’s more like it.
“Whoopi loves the money, but she doesn’t want to work so hard anymore,” the source declared. “She doesn’t come in prepared, she doesn’t really engage with other panelists and guests. She gives some one-liners and moves on.”
Good thing for Whoopi they don’t whip lazy slaves anymore.
On a tip from Torcer.
One reason America became great is that freedom allowed the generation of wealth through free market economics. Another is that it believed in itself. To judge by comic books, it doesn’t anymore:
Nick Spencer, Daniel Acuna, and Paul Renaud’s run on Captain America: Sam Wilson continues to serve as a direct attack on conservatives and libertarians in the form of a comic. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise given that Spencer ran for the Cincinnati City Council under the Charter Party and once worked within the Democrat party — not to mention his Twitter feed is pretty much a stream of his own political opinions.
The attacks began in the very first issue, when Spencer brings back one of Marvel’s oldest villains, the Sons of the Serpent. Previously, the Sons of the Serpent were “a racist group created by General Chen in an attempt to divide America, performing hate-crimes against foreigners around the country.” However, Spencer, Acuna, and Renaud have turned the group into one that supports free-market principles and opposes illegal immigration. Their stance on illegal immigration was covered extensively when the first issue debuted. However, in the most recent issue, Spencer decided to up the ante even more, characterizing Viper as a free-marketeer and one who believes in American exceptionalism…
This characterization is almost a mockery of the original Captain America, Steve Rogers, who originally appeared in Captain America Comics #1 throwing a haymaker to the jaw of Adolf Hitler before the United States was an active participant in World War II. According to Marvel, a young Steve Rogers vowed to “serve his country any way he could . . . [taking] the super soldier serum to become America’s one-man army.” Marvel continues, “Fighting for the red, white and blue for over 60 years, Captain America is the living, breathing symbol of freedom and liberty.” Furthermore, Captain America was designed to embody all the traits of America in the eyes of the patriotic beholder. He spread American exceptionalism by promoting America’s role as a leader in morals, ethics, economics, and politics. Nick Spencer has taken defining traits of Captain America and given them to one of his villains.
Spencer insinuates that people who believe there is “unfair and oppressive regulation at the hands of an overreaching government” are just like Viper — villainous.
Who cares about comic books, you ask? As Progressives Today reminds us, politics is downstream of culture. Kids who grow up reading this crap are less likely to comprehend American values, much less work to restore them.
On a tip from Torcer.
The purpose of ObamaCare is not to provide health insurance, but to increase the size and scope of the federal government, and to redistribute wealth on a politically strategic basis — not just to people who didn’t earn that wealth, but to people who are not even in the country legally:
Illegal immigrants and individuals with unclear legal status wrongly benefited from up to $750 million in ObamaCare subsidies and the government is struggling to recoup the money, according to a new Senate report obtained by Fox News.
Why would the government be struggling? True it will never get the money back from the illegals. But it can always print more, borrow more, or tax us more. People who work for a living struggle, not Big Government or its beneficiaries.
The report, produced by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, examined Affordable Care Act tax credits meant to defray the cost of insurance premiums. It found that as of June 2015, “the Administration awarded approximately $750 million in tax credits on behalf of individuals who were later determined to be ineligible because they failed to verify their citizenship, status as a national, or legal presence.”
The review found the credits went to more than 500,000 people – who are illegal immigrants or whose legal status was unclear due to insufficient records.
The term “tax credits” makes it sound like they are merely paying less tax. Actually, many of them already pay negative tax; that is, the IRS gives them $billions of our money, even though a legitimate government would throw them out of the country. The purpose of the IRS is the same as ObamaCare’s.
On tips from Torcer and Bodhisattva.
Jeb Bush said Monday that he would push to reverse the Supreme Court decision paving the way for super-PACs that spend big money backing candidates — including himself.
“If I could do it all again I’d eliminate the Supreme Court ruling” Citizens United, the Republican presidential candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview published Monday afternoon, just a day before the New Hampshire primary.
Good thing presidents do not have the power to reverse Supreme Court rulings. Jeb’s plan is to amend the Constitution so as to exempt political speech from First Amendment protection.
Maybe Jeb is just angry because all of the super-PAC money he has been flinging to the four winds has gotten him nowhere:
Bush has been supported in his White House bid by millions of dollars spent by the super-PAC Right to Rise, which pulled in $118 million last year.
Despite the funding haul, he’s lagged in the polls for most of the White House race, taking 3 percent in the Iowa caucuses last week.
Apparently he hopes to do better in New Hampshire by pandering to Democrats, who will be able to vote for him in the primary today, and who hate Citizens United because it acknowledges a corporate right to free speech.
Both Democrat candidates agree with Jeb on the ruling — Shrillary in particular, because Citizens United came about when Democrats tried to use campaign finance laws to suppress a movie critical of her career in corruption. Overturning the ruling would not only reduce the flow of super-PAC funds into Jeb’s own coffers; it would also reduce the notion that America is still a free country to a joke.
On a tip from Torcer.
The hordes of Islamic savages imported to displace the native population have literally been making a latrine out of Europe with their seventh century notions of sanitation. If you can get them to use a toilet at all rather than crapping in the bushes, they try standing on it and squatting, frequently with unfortunate results. Luckily there is still enough left of a free market for it to provide a solution:
Enter the Global Fliegenschmidt toilet manufacturers based in Coswig, Saxony-Anhalt, who have announced their plans to develop a mobile “multicultural toilet” complete with a squatting platform and water hose for migrant friendly sanitation.
The design was shown to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung national newspaper, who gave a gloriously politically correct write up of the new product, branding it, “Universally applicable: the refugee toilet is ideal for the globalised defecation.”
No need for the water hose. A 2015 Turkish fatwa now allows Muslims to use toilet paper, although many have never actually seen the stuff.
“The set of rules for how Muslims should relieve themselves, called the Qadaa al-Haajah, was established in the times before toilet paper or toilet seats were invented. Use of the left hand or three stones was also permissible,” reports the London Daily Mail. “The code also states that followers should not speak or read while on the toilet and should enter with their left foot and leave with their right, speaking a prayer,” notes the newspaper.
Also, you cannot have your back to Mecca when using a toilet, and the floor can’t be green, because that is the color of Islam. But apparently Allah said nothing about leaving a stinking mess behind.
Suggesting that Muslims in Europe adopt civilized norms doesn’t fly:
One small town in Germany posted a bulletin on the town’s website informing the migrants of certain Western norms to which they were expected to adhere. Yes, toilet habits were among a variety of issues.
“Germany is a clean country and should remain so. We do our necessities exclusively on toilets, not in gardens and parks, not even in hedges and behind bushes,” according to Focus, a German news daily.
The town was excoriated as racist, and the bulletin was taken down.
A little assimilation would keep Europe smelling clean. But it is the soon-to-be-outnumbered Europeans who will do the assimilating to the new Third World standards.
On tips from Dan F and Varla.
Members of the global warming cult emit as much harmless CO2 as anyone else, and in the case of the high priesthood, vastly more than most. But jet-setters like Al Gore absolve themselves of their climate sins by buying indulges, also known as “carbon offsets.” The money mostly goes into the pocket of greedy global warming profiteers, but some of it is spent on planting trees; this theoretically restores the climate stasis that has never existed and never will exist but that we are told we cannot live without. However,
A new study, published Thursday in the journal Science, shows that an expansion of forests towards dark green conifers in Europe has stoked global warming. The findings challenge the widespread view that planting more trees helps human efforts to slow the Earth’s rising temperatures. …
“Two and a half centuries of forest management in Europe have not cooled the climate,” a team of scientists led by France’s Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement wrote.
While the area of Europe’s forests has expanded by 10 percent since 1750, the continent’s summer temperatures have increased 0.12 degree Celsius (0.2 Fahrenheit). The scientists say that’s largely because many nations have planted conifers such as pines and spruces whose dark color traps the sun’s heat.
As always, man’s productive activities are to blame:
Lighter-colored broad-leafed trees, such as oak or birch, reflect more sunlight. But fast-growing conifers, which are used for everything from building materials to pulp, have long outpaced them.
No worries, tree planters. Another study is bound to come along to prove that trees cause global cooling. When it comes to climate, for every study proving one thing, there is another proving the opposite. There are no facts, only theories.
On a tip from Torcer.
Trump’s mask has been slipping as he campaigns in New Hampshire:
In a nearly one-hour speech, Trump railed against pharmaceutical companies. He railed against oil companies. And insurance companies. And defense contractors. And he set himself against a political system that he said allows big-money corporate “bloodsuckers” to control the government with campaign contributions.
“Whether it’s the insurance companies, or the drug companies, or the oil companies, it’s all the same thing,” Trump said. “We’re never going to get our country back if we keep doing this.”
Trump promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation’s defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas.
The word “nominally” is appropriate. Trump is not a Republican in any meaningful sense, and far less is he a conservative. Policy-wise, he would be similar to Bernie Sanders. He is using populist rhetoric to attempt a hostile takeover of the Republican Party on behalf of Big Government statism. His nomination would be not just a setback but a catastrophe for conservatives.
Hat tip: Right Wing News.
Compliments of Stormfax.
Just because someone is a vulgar leftist degenerate does not mean that person is not a thought criminal. Germaine Greer serves as an example:
Greer appeared unruffled by the Cambridge LGBT+ Campaign’s decision to boycott her appearance in response to her historically transphobic views, and her opposition to the appointment of transgender Dr Rachel Padman to Newnham college. Rather, she continued to expound her infamous radical feminist views with coarse language. …
Greer was uncompromising in her rhetoric, condemning from the beginning of her speech the “pressure on women to be clean, sweet, perfumed and submissive” and later suggested that trans women do not know what it is to “have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”. …
Greer remained steadfast in her stipulation that her feminism was about women and appeared visibly angered by the fact that discussion lingered upon what she clearly felt to be a side issue: “I’ve got 51 per cent of the world to think about and I’ve got to talk about transphobia”.
What Greer doesn’t get is that according to current liberal dogma, men literally become women merely by saying they are women. Therefore, to exclude cross-dressing weirdos like Bruce Jenner from the feminist tent would not be inclusive.
That is to say, TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) is a hate crime, as affirmed by “femyl transgender lesbian and street musician” Chrisentiae Saint-Piaf, star of the film Rainbow Gurl. WARNING — I don’t know how bad this video gets because I couldn’t take even 2 minutes of it:
On tips from Steve T.
Bernie Sanders presents himself as a humble public servant who doesn’t care about money. But these days, few go into Big Government unaware that it is now the easiest path to extravagant riches. Why create wealth when you can steal it from others on behalf of the “underprivileged,” meanwhile helping yourself to a healthy cut of the booty? The Sanders family does seem to like money:
James O’Brien, a political consultant and former publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine, says the career politician, who has been a mayor, member of Congress and U.S. senator, has achieved the financial status of a millionaire.
O’Brien has analyzed the financial status of Sanders and his wife, including their financial disclosure report, and has concluded they have a net worth in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million, not the $700,000 or less that is usually reported by the media. …
O’Brien says that Sanders’ financial disclosure forms are incomplete. “For someone who doesn’t care about money, he goes a long way to cover up his true net worth,” he says. “Bernie does not disclose the value of real estate holdings. He can. He is not required to, but he could if he chose. It is known that he and/or his wife own at least two homes—one with rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill where the median home value is $722,000.”
Not all of the gravy was acquired through conventional “public servant” means. Federal authorities have been requested to investigate his wife Jane O’Meara Sanders, the recipient of a lucrative “golden parachute” from Burlington College, for bank fraud. She was given a $200,000 severance package after resigning under pressure.
In a story headlined, “Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank,” reporters Blake Neff and Peter Fricke of the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation reported the essential facts of the case, noting that she nearly bankrupted Burlington College when she took on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. “The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution,” Neff and Fricke report.
By any standard of fair and objective news reporting, a candidate who promises “free college” to America’s young people should be asked to address the issue of his wife’s financial shenanigans almost bankrupting an institution of higher learning. But it hasn’t been raised in the debates.
No matter. Colleges can’t print their own money like the federal government can. That’s why Sanders can offer free everything to everyone.
After bankrupting the entire country, he too would float comfortably away beneath a golden parachute, should the country be foolish enough to elect him.
The Washington Free Beacon has reported that Senator Sanders used campaign money to benefit members of his family, and that Jane Sanders directed six-figure sums from Burlington College to her daughter and the son of a family friend.
But the important thing to his supporters is that Sanders will stick it good to the rich.
On a tip from JusttheTipHQ.
Imagine the outrage if Those in Charge staged a KKK rally during the Super Bowl halftime show. Yet this equivalent hardly raised a peep of protest:
When Beyoncé took to the field during the Super Bowl 50 halftime show, she apparently had a political message to convey.
Clad in a black leotard with a gold embellished jacket, Beyoncé was flanked by dancers who sported afros and black berets, reportedly in reference to the Black Panther Party. … This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party.
The Black Panthers weren’t just lunatic moonbats who hated white people. They were also violent sociopaths who engaged in a wide array of crimes including murder. Judging by their rhetoric, the New Black Panthers aren’t any better.
At one point during the performance the backup dancers and Beyoncé gave a salute, and they later formed an X formation, which the Twitterverse was quick to declare was a reference to Malcom X.
Malcolm X was best known for rejecting the peaceful tactics advocated by MLK in favor of his “by any means necessary” approach to achieving black power.
And if there was any doubt that Beyoncé’s performance was politically-charged, her dancers were also filmed in a video that was posted on the Black Lives Matter Twitter page shortly after the halftime show.
In the clip, the dancers hold up a sign that reads “Justice 4 Mario Woods.”
Woods was a person of politically preferred pigmentation who was appropriately shot by police for refusing to drop a weapon.
Why can’t regular Americans even watch a football game without being told to hate themselves for their race?
Too bad for the producers of this appalling spectacle that Peyton Manning went off script by defeating the conveniently named Panthers, who are billed as the “Most Unapologetically Black Team In NFL History.”
— BLM Bay area (@BLMBAYAREA) February 8, 2016
On a tip from Varla.
Department of Homeland Security Veteran Philip Haney found it ironic in the extreme — not to mention infuriating — that after the Underwear Bomber was stopped only by his Third World hygiene from blowing up an airliner full of innocent people on Christmas Day 2009, Obama blamed it on the intelligence community not connecting dots. Meanwhile, in order to stand with the Muslims as he promised, Obama has been methodically erasing those dots:
After leaving my 15 year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.
Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
This does not so much prevent authorities from capturing terrorists after they have killed, as prevent them from stopping the attacks from occurring in the first place.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).
It is very possible that Americans are dead who would not be if not for Obama’s commitment to defending Islam in the name of political correctness.
Imagine if during WWII the country was infested with Nazi spies who were killing people and were deliberately protected by the president. He would have been removed from office and tried for treason.
On tips from Bill T, Torcer, Steve A, and Rob E.
Yesterday’s Super Bowl victory by the Denver Broncos was a very good thing for football, and not only because it allowed us to take vicarious pride in the fitting probable climax of Peyton Manning’s incredible career. A victory for Cam Newton’s Panthers would have further alienated fans who have been drifting away from the game, disgusted by the direction the sport has been taking. Manning is everything an athlete should aspire to be; Newton personifies poor sportsmanship:
Newton’s reactions to his nonstop triumphs even raised the ire of a Tennessee mom who wrote a letter that went viral complaining of his “chest puffs,” “pelvic thrusts” and “arrogant struts and the ‘in your face’ taunting” as the Panthers dismantled the Titans.
After his team bested defending NFC champs the Seattle Seahawks in the playoffs — and Newton tossed a Seahawks flag to the turf in celebration — a fan started a petition to have “one of the most unprofessional, unsportsmanlike individuals on the face of the planet” banned from Seahawks home games forever.
And most folks figured the Panthers’ explosive play would propel them to certain victory over the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50 — and we’d be treated to one more round of Newton’s exultations.
Fortunately, we were not subjected to that.
Poor winners also make poor losers. Newton showed up for a postgame press conference yesterday wearing a Trayvon hoodie and behaved like a sulky teenager not quite too old for a spanking.
Even his sullen one-word answers were less discreditable than his performance during the game:
Cam left us with the jarring image of him recoiling from a fumble after Von Miller knocked the ball out of his hands with four minutes left in the game and Carolina trailing, 16-10. Not only did Newton not pounce on the loose football — one that Broncos safety T.J. Ward ultimately recovered at the Panthers’ 9-yard line — but he also jumped back after a couple Broncos defenders dove toward it. It was a decision that his head coach, Ron Rivera, explained by saying Newton “was trying to find a way to get the ball and keep it alive.” A more jaded perspective was that Newton froze at the worst possible moment. … Newton reacted to that ball as if it were a live hand grenade.
Apparently he was afraid he might get hurt. Football can be a rough game.
People have good reason to say, “Let the best man win.” It is better for the game when things turn out that way.
On tips from Varla.
The useless moonbats comprising the United Nations actually believe they constitute some sort of government. They even issue stamps. You could probably guess what the stamps look like:
Depravity is equal to normalcy. This subversive and corrosive message was brought to you and the rest of the world largely by the American taxpayer.
Nigerians aren’t liking it:
Ambassador Usman Sarki of Nigeria gave a stinging rebuke to the UN Secretary General and the UN bureaucracy in anticipation of the roll-out of a UN postage stamp celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism…
The UN should not take unilateral decisions on such sensitive matters that offend the sensibilities of the majority of its Member States, and contradict their religious beliefs, cultures, traditions and laws. If it must act in this fashion, the UN should promote issues that enjoy consensus and, at the same time, advance the dignity of people and their genuine human rights.
What’s he so angry about? At least Nigerians don’t fund this pernicious organization to the tune of $8 billion per year like Americans are forced to do.
On a tip from seaoh.
This is why the USA is done winning wars until it throws off liberal rule:
The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.
A new directive’s theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show “resilience” and beat back the threat based on “actionable science.”
Four points should be noted: (1) climate change is an invariable feature of life on earth; (2) currently there is no reason to regard it as a problem; (3) there is nothing the military could do about it anyway; (4) the purpose of the military is to fight our enemies, not the weather.
[The directive] orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.”
That is, a whole new layer of extravagantly expensive Pentagon bureaucracy will be devoted to discussing how many climate change fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
Meanwhile, our enemies are on the move. Their objectives do not involve the weather, but rather exploiting our weakness for maximum advantage.
The directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as “deniers” any scientists who disagree.
Obviously this militant insanity won’t help us win wars, but liberals don’t like winning wars, since according to their dogma America is always the bad guy. The important thing is that the flourishing man-eating polar bears know we put their alleged interests first.
On a tip from Bodhisattva.
Relax, moonbats. Jonathan Chait at liberal New York Magazine says you have nothing to fear from Donald Trump. Since New York Magazine gives me hives, let’s go straight to the Daily Caller summary. Chait makes three points:
1. Trump “would almost certainly lose” the General Election.
2. Trump’s nomination “might upend his party” based on “how little he or his supporters seem to care about [conservative] anti-government ideology.”
3. Lastly, if elected, Trump would govern like former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, Chait reminds us, “compromised with Democrats on the budget, raising taxes and funding new public infrastructure.”
Chait’s fellow leftists Robert Reich and Jimmy Carter agree that Trump is preferable to a conservative like Cruz because unlike Cruz he does not believe in conservative principles. He will only pay them lip service so long as it suits his purposes.
Unlike moonbats, countermoonbats have everything to fear from Donald Trump. The enemy within is usually the one that causes the most damage.
On a tip from Torcer.
Alibi3col theme by Themocracy