The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Four Weeks That Won Trump the White House
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For pure campaign maneuvers, the second half of August and first half of September 2016 was when Trump laid the basis for his victory and Hillary self-destructed:

August 17, 2016: Trump dumps swamp-dweller Paul Manafort, installs Steven Bannon and Kellyanne Conway

Late August: Trump conducts two weeks of semi-public debate over what should be his immigration policy; Ann Coulter frantic over possibility Trump will sell out

August 25: Hillary emerges from fundraising at Rothschild compound in Hamptons, gives bizarrely pointless speech in Reno denouncing obscure “Alt-Right;” heckler introduces America to “Pepe”

August 31: Trump flies to Mexico, meets intimidated Mexican President, returns to Arizona to give triumphant speech announcing his strong immigration policy

September 5: Hillary returns to campaign trail at sparsely attended traditional Labor Day kickoff rally for union members, has coughing fit; invites press to ask her softball questions on her plane but has another coughing fit; press denounces “conspiracy theories” about Hillary’s health

September 9: Hillary denounces one-quarter of the American people as “basket of deplorables” at sold-out gay Wall Street fundraiser starring Barbra Streisand

September 11: Hillary passes out at 9/11 memorial; (secretly, Donna Brazile spitballs a Biden-Booker replacement ticket)

 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy

    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG, Anonym
    • Replies: @White Guy In Japan
    That link is much-much-funnier than your lousy trolling.
    , @TheBoom
    Thank you for being a leftist who openly advocates genocide against whites rather than obviously false proclamations like diversity is our strength.
    , @Bleuteaux
    By definition, gay people don't replace anyone.
    , @fish

    Ohs Tinys.......taint nut rong wit wyte pekoe......Lednert likes em!


    - Lednert “he be likin whyt pekoe” pitsss
     
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    white pekoe
     
    That's my favorite tea.
    , @MBlanc46
    Cry me a river.
    , @Anonymous
    "...white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe."

    Even the tea in China believes in White Supremacy. It can never be defeated.
    , @Anonymous
    More from Very Smart Brothas:

    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/do-white-people-have-cousins-1820685828


    ... White people, however, generally don’t seem to have the same reverence for cousin culture. ... They seem to live in a cousinless universe.

    ... Now, to be fair, I’ve heard that Southern white people are generally more into cousin culture. But why hasn’t that affinity for cousins stretched up North or out West?

    I have my theories. My favorite one? America is a generally unwelcoming place for us, so we need all the family we can get, whereas white people can go anywhere and be met with smiles, so they just don’t need that extra layer of family cushion.
     

    , @tyrone
    it's ORANGE pekoe tiny ,quite delicious
    , @Neoconned
    You're stupider than I thought.

    Black Americans don't actually have that high a birthrate....Latinos have a higher birthrate and for both groups their growth rate is in decline and or is plateauing.

    Anyway Trump can nip this in the ass in two weeks if he wanted to. On the one hand he has to stop this "prosecution creep" from the Deep State parasites. Did Trump commit an impeachable offense? Of course not but they'll keep pushing this shit til they Trump up some obstruction of Justice bullcrap.

    Trump needs to sick Sessions in them NOW! Indict Mueller and Comey for the Uranium scandal and end this fishing expedition papered over as a corruption investigation.

    THEN take a cue from Shinzo Abes LDP party that has ruled Japan for most of the postwar period.

    Sideline the libertarian anarchist loons and do a mix of New Deal mass employment infrastructure programs financed by Fed stimulus programs and Reagan type hand outs to defense contractors.

    And pin the defense contracts to hiring targets. Meaning the defense companies can only get their contracts if they hire AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    Then make them closed shop union jobs, enforce e verify and cut off welfare and citizenship to anchor babies. The money saved from that shit can give govt jobs and free healthcare to white and black Americans....
    , @Stan Adams

    We will replace you
     
    How was your Siberian vacation, Mr. Khrushchev?

    (Speaking of the area near Mongolia, I would guess that you're too much of a Mongoloid to get that historical reference.)
    , @Pat Boyle
    I keep reading about "White Supremacy" but I'm a little fuzzy on the concept.

    If you look at the history of civilization on this planet with this species - there wasn't a whole lot of progress until the fifteenth century. Most writers attribute this social stasis to Malthusian factors. When various inventions increased productivity, human fecundity quickly gobbled up the increase and put people right back where they started.

    There were two great centers of human progress - the West (with Rome) an the East (with China). The other areas of the globe - India, the Americas and South East Asia - were distinctly second rate.

    Then suddenly the West began to pile success upon success and we had "The Triumph of the West". These people were Europeans or European descendants and we enter the modern world . The world of "White Supremacy". It wasn't a conspiracy. It was a well documented phenomenon. There are many books on this one topic.

    We live in a White Supremacy world but it may end. China is re-emerging as our competitor. But if it isn't China and the East Asians who come to dominate the world after us it sure won't be anyone else. South America is improving but only slowly. And Africa is receding in importance. If it isn't White Supremacy it will surely be Yellow Supremacv.
    , @Sam McGowan
    Leonard Pitts is a racist.
    , @MEH 0910
    https://cdn.coffeeam.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/536x/64ab722eb1ddc777f7aa79a78e9d2ed1/p/a/patriotic_white_pekoe_tea.jpg
    , @Wally
    Without Euro whites there we be no one to the pay bills of blacks & browns.
    Blacks & browns aren't capable by themselves.

    That's why they all want to come to Euro white countries.
    , @el topo
    Pax Dickinson, is that you?
    https://twitter.com/Jokeocrazy
    , @Nially_Bhoy
    Learn to spell, Brother.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I don’t think those weeks so much cemented the victory as they did draw the definitive battle lines in a way that put Hillary Clinton on the moral defensive. Here she was fighting to appear healthy and paint her opponent as a Great Divider while hacking and spitting all over and giving the bird to at least a quarter of the country, while Trump is preparing the charge, springboarding from his strongest issue.

    Even so, that might not have been enough by itself. Hillary tried to regain the moral offensive ground by playing the Woman Card from the first debate but she was quickly routed by Trump bringing out a surprise “Bimbo Eruption” Brigade reinforcement in a subsequent match. And her goose was definitively cooked when the Weiner photo investigations led to the announcement of more e-mails, reviving the fizzled “Lock Her Up” chants at exactly the wrong moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The second debate was the decisive moment, a repeat of the first would have seen Trump dismissed as just not up to it, a reality TV star. The access Hollywood tape had just come out and he was wobbling and the legs looked like they were going. Instead he mercilessly and meticulously destroyed her as if Trump seemed to sense that it was now or never.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    That link is much-much-funnier than your lousy trolling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    The link should give you a hint. TD is not really a troll although his constant posting gets a little tedious at times.. TD is actually a master at lampooning the thinking of White SJWs and lame-brained Negroes like Tennessee Coates.
    , @Alfa158
    The Leonard Pitts links are part of TD's schtick. He is a right winger who spoofs the Left by posting over the top parodies of brain-dead anti-White screeds. Notice that he uses a self-abusive moniker Tiny D(i)uck. Nobody who was serious about their posts would do that. The Pitts links are part of the joke as he links to a (I'm guessing) real person who sounds even crazier and dumber than his fake TD persona.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Nico
    I don't think those weeks so much cemented the victory as they did draw the definitive battle lines in a way that put Hillary Clinton on the moral defensive. Here she was fighting to appear healthy and paint her opponent as a Great Divider while hacking and spitting all over and giving the bird to at least a quarter of the country, while Trump is preparing the charge, springboarding from his strongest issue.

    Even so, that might not have been enough by itself. Hillary tried to regain the moral offensive ground by playing the Woman Card from the first debate but she was quickly routed by Trump bringing out a surprise "Bimbo Eruption" Brigade reinforcement in a subsequent match. And her goose was definitively cooked when the Weiner photo investigations led to the announcement of more e-mails, reviving the fizzled "Lock Her Up" chants at exactly the wrong moment.

    The second debate was the decisive moment, a repeat of the first would have seen Trump dismissed as just not up to it, a reality TV star. The access Hollywood tape had just come out and he was wobbling and the legs looked like they were going. Instead he mercilessly and meticulously destroyed her as if Trump seemed to sense that it was now or never.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Nico
    Mostly agree but one important caveat is necsssary. There was a theatrical experiment in New York which had a re-enactment of the first debate with Trump cast as a woman and Clinton cast as a man. To the surprise of everyone, including the director, who had intended to show "what men can get away with that women can't," female-Trump came across way better than male-Clinton. Trump was not good in the first debate by debate club handbook standards, I think we can all agree. But Clinton miscalculated her audience bigtime. She took the tone of a condescending school marm and that painted clown-smile would give the willies to anyone watching who'd seen It.
    , @guest
    I don't think debates matter that much, unless a candidate screws up and says "I hate the American people." Or cries like John Boner and splits their pants.

    Also, bear in mind they have their strategies, so Trump's extra oomph in round two could've been on purpose instead of him sensing it was then or never.

    That being said, there was something about Debate #2. Alicia Machado was supposed to be the knockout punch, believe it or not. They wheeled her out to embarrass Trump. Which didn't really work. Not so much because of Trump's reaction, which was appropriate. But simply because it wasn't what it was cracked up to be.
    , @Detective Club
    The first debate was the only debate which Hillary won outright. The Lefty media was expecting Trump to lose the second debate Big Time : instead Trump was the clear winner. The third debate was an anemic affair, with neither candidate putting in a creditable performance.

    Overall Black turnout was down 5.5% from 2012, thereby letting Trump win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a mere 80,000 votes in those three states combined and thus winning in the electoral college. Blacks, particularly Black males, hated Hillary's guts with a passion beyond measure. Hillary was too much the White school teacher type or White lady boss type for them, so they stayed home.

    Hillary romped with the Third-World vote. She crushed Trump in California 60%-31%. Thanks to the Somali vote in Minnesota, she beat Trump there by only 1 1/2%. Thanks to the bent same-day "Motor-Voter" turnout in New Hampshire, Hillary beat Trump in NH by less than 2.500 votes.

    On Nov. 8, 2016, was Trump just another lucky bastard in the game of politics or is it true when they say : FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. What I have found astounding from my shitlib acquaintances is how many don’t see anything wrong with her “deplorables” line. I mean, granted, she wasn’t wrong per se. Approximately half of Trump supporters were irredeemable
    deplorables [in before triggered Trumptards angrily @ing me]. But she was (unsurprisingly) dishonest in omitting the inconvenient fact that at least half of her supporters were equally deplorable. And, honesty aside, it is a shockingly stupid thing for a candidate running for office under quasi-universal suffrage to publicly disparage a large portion of the electorate. Trump never said anything nearly as stupid. Muslims and Mexican immigrants are a much smaller portion of the electorate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @athEIst
    Trump never said anything nearly as stupid.

    But President Romney did. (the 47%)
    , @Anonymous
    You never ever criticize the electorate. The 'deplorables' incident is probably the best demonstration of her general political incompetence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @LondonBob
    The second debate was the decisive moment, a repeat of the first would have seen Trump dismissed as just not up to it, a reality TV star. The access Hollywood tape had just come out and he was wobbling and the legs looked like they were going. Instead he mercilessly and meticulously destroyed her as if Trump seemed to sense that it was now or never.

    Mostly agree but one important caveat is necsssary. There was a theatrical experiment in New York which had a re-enactment of the first debate with Trump cast as a woman and Clinton cast as a man. To the surprise of everyone, including the director, who had intended to show “what men can get away with that women can’t,” female-Trump came across way better than male-Clinton. Trump was not good in the first debate by debate club handbook standards, I think we can all agree. But Clinton miscalculated her audience bigtime. She took the tone of a condescending school marm and that painted clown-smile would give the willies to anyone watching who’d seen It.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin
    Here is it. Donna Trump is indeed awesome.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. How about just one date?

    July 26, 2016: the Democrat Party nominates Hillary Clinton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    > July 26, 2016: the Democrat Party nominates Hillary Clinton.

    Democratic Party
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. They’ve blocked Irish Savant on my mobile even tho I have the adult filter removed
    ARSES mudsharking poz article looks woke but I can only see the title & first line on google page

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @LondonBob
    The second debate was the decisive moment, a repeat of the first would have seen Trump dismissed as just not up to it, a reality TV star. The access Hollywood tape had just come out and he was wobbling and the legs looked like they were going. Instead he mercilessly and meticulously destroyed her as if Trump seemed to sense that it was now or never.

    I don’t think debates matter that much, unless a candidate screws up and says “I hate the American people.” Or cries like John Boner and splits their pants.

    Also, bear in mind they have their strategies, so Trump’s extra oomph in round two could’ve been on purpose instead of him sensing it was then or never.

    That being said, there was something about Debate #2. Alicia Machado was supposed to be the knockout punch, believe it or not. They wheeled her out to embarrass Trump. Which didn’t really work. Not so much because of Trump’s reaction, which was appropriate. But simply because it wasn’t what it was cracked up to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Could it be that we are heading into another decisive period that might shape the midterms?
    Tax decision, Alabama election, Tillerson chatter…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Since Trump, all 'periods are decisive', he changed everything.
    , @El Dato
    WAR FOR NO GOOD REASON OR PEACE!

    I sure hope to hell this Jerusalem clownshow isn't going to be held.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The second debate was glorious. Everyone who’s ever encountered someone like Hillary Clinton was cheering when he said “you’d be in jail”. I bet a lot of Black men decided they can’t vote against a magnificent bastard who’d bring the hammer down like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    That line was drop-the-mike, walk-off-the-stage perfect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Though Anthony Weiner will always be remembered, the alt-right speech was probably my favorite moment.

    Read More
    • LOL: Luke Lea
    • Replies: @boomstick
    I've thought for a while that the Trump movement and GamerGate where philosophically similar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Thank you for being a leftist who openly advocates genocide against whites rather than obviously false proclamations like diversity is our strength.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @LondonBob
    The second debate was the decisive moment, a repeat of the first would have seen Trump dismissed as just not up to it, a reality TV star. The access Hollywood tape had just come out and he was wobbling and the legs looked like they were going. Instead he mercilessly and meticulously destroyed her as if Trump seemed to sense that it was now or never.

    The first debate was the only debate which Hillary won outright. The Lefty media was expecting Trump to lose the second debate Big Time : instead Trump was the clear winner. The third debate was an anemic affair, with neither candidate putting in a creditable performance.

    Overall Black turnout was down 5.5% from 2012, thereby letting Trump win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a mere 80,000 votes in those three states combined and thus winning in the electoral college. Blacks, particularly Black males, hated Hillary’s guts with a passion beyond measure. Hillary was too much the White school teacher type or White lady boss type for them, so they stayed home.

    Hillary romped with the Third-World vote. She crushed Trump in California 60%-31%. Thanks to the Somali vote in Minnesota, she beat Trump there by only 1 1/2%. Thanks to the bent same-day “Motor-Voter” turnout in New Hampshire, Hillary beat Trump in NH by less than 2.500 votes.

    On Nov. 8, 2016, was Trump just another lucky bastard in the game of politics or is it true when they say : FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You call this "luck"?

    https://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png

    plus:
    2010 Dems lost the House
    2012 the Dems lost the Senate
    2016 Dems lost the White House

    The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama’s presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. So what?

    Those who believe, especially at this point, that our country is governed through electoral politics are willfully ignorant. Voting is for suckers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016, as published at The Unz Review:

    "In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

    A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Brilliant and concise!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Sept. 23rds “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead” Vegas event was when you know she knew. She was either told that morning or figured it for herself the night before. The body language and facial expressions really helped convey knowing defeat. I didn’t think she was mentally prepared to change her course after that. She was on autopilot with a sickly mind and body.

    O.T. How stupid is Theresa May? Using the word “hateful” along with the name of your opposition in a soundbite whose name is “Britain First!”? Why name them at all in that sentence. Shade is as important as light in political rhetoric.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    By definition, gay people don’t replace anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Ohs Tinys…….taint nut rong wit wyte pekoe……Lednert likes em!

    - Lednert “he be likin whyt pekoe” pitsss

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Those are the weeks that defined the contest–naionalist versus elite establishment snob–that gave Trump a solid path to victory.

    Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” exposing to the millions who pay no attention, the reality that she’s an establishment apparatchik with thinly disguised contempt for the American people, while reinforcing the female part of her tedious church lady personality with the precious “basket”. At that point a smarter, more ideological and rhetorically asute Trump would have had a clear path to victory.

    But those four weeks didn’t actually win the thing, because of Trump’s weaknesses. His lazy and incompetent first debate performance–never bringing up his core issue of immigration in the context of all the economic and jobs questions, never bothering to even try to nail Hillary to her Goldman Sachs patrons, letting Hillary pretend she’s middle class by citing her father and doing nothing–cost Trump a clear victory. Trump was just super fortunate that he was running against Hillary, a woman who is incredibly unappealling on pretty much every level–personality, policy, corruption, incompetence.

    This thing was so close any of mistakes or successes was potentially decisive. But i would give the nod to Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment as the critical moment. Ironically it was Hillary’s emission that sired a Trump victory.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Hillary Clinton had the worst combination of traits:

    - She was snobby without the least bit of noblesse oblige to anyone but her vibrant rabble.

    - She was part of the Washington establishment but had shown herself to be grossly incompetent when holding high office. An ambassador and his security team were brutally killed on her watch and tens of thousands of her top secret documents disappeared into cyberspace. This was noted by Americans who'd ever served in the military or handled classified documents.

    - She was rich, White and privileged but took the side of cop killers after the BLM Dallas massacre.

    - She was sanctimonious but her Clinton Foundation charity was clearly a scam.
    , @guest
    Trump personally didn't tie Hillary to the cloud people, but her comments did. Anyway, you think people actually paid attention to stories about her father? No one thinks of her as middle-class. She's the millionaire wife of a former president who was in Washington for a generation. That's her profile.

    Of all things to criticize Trump about, not calling out her non-middle-classedness is a bizarre one.
    , @It's All Ball Bearings
    Regarding first debate, it was a rope-a-dope
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    white pekoe

    That’s my favorite tea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    So what?

    Those who believe, especially at this point, that our country is governed through electoral politics are willfully ignorant. Voting is for suckers.

    Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016, as published at The Unz Review:

    “In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

    A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    This point of view is way too cynical for the cynics of Sailer's caliber.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Cry me a river.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Trump’s victory was a 2 sided coin – he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary’s self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary’s exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    Trump won because of his position on immigration. He would have crushed Biden, Crazy Bernie Pocahontas, anybody the Dems could have conceivably nominated. If he fulfills his promises on immigration, then he will be re-elected in a bigger landslide in 2020. If not, then not.

    To understand why I say this, you might read Angelo Codevilla’s ”The Ruling Class”.

    https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

    Essentially, Trump claimed to actually want to represent the interests of the American people unlike every presidential candidate of either party at least this century.
    , @James Kabala
    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve's list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump's visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.
    , @AnotherDad

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?
     
    I love what Trump's done for nationalism and the shock he's provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.


    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of "presidential" names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I'm a the peak boomer--at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro's presidency completely about his only interest--himself. The Democrat "bench" is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary--whose "competition" was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated "the next guy"--Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney--while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward "why not me?"--McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands--time for a woman!--and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around ... people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown's ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she's black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.
    , @guest
    "Would Trump have won against a better Democratic candidate?"

    That question answers itself, considering how close the election was. Unless by "better" you mean more able to rack up meaningless popular votes, of course a better opponent would've beaten him. Because there wasn't that much ground to make up, and Trump is remarkably unpopular among certain segments. (Which is also, ironically,the reason he won. Because of all the free press from haters and the fact that his base gets energized from the right people hating him.)
    , @anonymous

    Trump is an exceptionally lucky man....Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate?
     
    Keep in mind Trump survived that Access Hollywood tape, probably the biggest October surprise and scandal of any presidential race.

    How would Trump have done against Hillary or any other democrat if that tape had never been released?

    Additionally, has any presidential candidate ever received less support from his party? He not only received minimal support, but a significant number of the leaders were neverTrumpers sabotaging his chances by running Egghead and encouraging people to vote for Hillary.

    Finally, has any presidential candidate ever received more negative, and downright hostile coverage by the MSM?

    It's possible a more likable democrat would have won, ASSUMING all of the above conditions were in place. However, if none of the above had happened to Trump, he would have wiped the floor with any democrat. It was only close because of that cumulative headwind he faced. One that no other candidate, at least my lifetime, has ever faced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. It was a close run thing. I recall not being able to bear watching the election on TV that night, thinking that the end of your nation is a time to be drinking good wine with your wife instead of waiting for Meghan Kelley to gloat about how the End of All Things is really awesome.

    No media of any kind that night or the next morning. I found out while on the treadmill at the gym: CNN had all sadz on. I damn near fell off the machine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonimouse
    I’m an engineer at Boeing working second shift PST. I’m at my computer all night but adamantly refused to check any internet sites. I didn’t want to be demoralized by what I feared was a Hillary landslide victory. At the end of my shift, as I was filling in my work hours, I let myself peek at the election results to get the bad news. All the sites were predicting a Trump victory.

    I WAS STUNNED!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Related, I remember in the Republican primaries that Trump took off after he pushed on illegal immigration at the same time that Jeb! was defending it as “acts of love.”

    The American people really don’t want to be Brazil 2.0.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @Jack D
    Trump's victory was a 2 sided coin - he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary's self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary's exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    Trump won because of his position on immigration. He would have crushed Biden, Crazy Bernie Pocahontas, anybody the Dems could have conceivably nominated. If he fulfills his promises on immigration, then he will be re-elected in a bigger landslide in 2020. If not, then not.

    To understand why I say this, you might read Angelo Codevilla’s ”The Ruling Class”.

    https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

    Essentially, Trump claimed to actually want to represent the interests of the American people unlike every presidential candidate of either party at least this century.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. That’s what People of Color said 30 years ago… “People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy.”

    30 years from now, People of Color will still be failing and there will be a new theory on how white supremacy is the cause of their failure.

    Maybe People of Color should try blaming their failure on themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Off The Street
    There is an entire governmental and media edifice dedicated to hiding the fact of various parallel social systems and for punishing those who notice and object to subsidizing the parallels. Those may be black and white, domestic and foreign, you get the drift. In a more rational world, such differences would be spotlighted and plausible solutions broached. When stakeholders have too much at risk in one system or another, or in preserving the artifice, then they also have extra incentive to maintain their relative positions. At some point, the cracks begin to appear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Trump dumps swamp-dweller Paul Manafort…….

    This old pro got Donald Trump through, shepherded him through the Republican Convention. How soon they forget. I will say that Manafort did it out of patriotic duty, now look where this landed him. In Mueller’s cross hairs and pre-dawn raids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Do you honestly think there would have been a Cruz push at the convention without Manafort? I mean, Nevertrumpers are stupid enough, but they're not that suicidal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Hopefully this week’s passage of the tax cuts for oligarchs and the Jerusalem embassy thing (whatever that is) will be the start of sealing Trump’s re-election in 2020, as some factions of the hostile ruling class back off or maybe even come around to Trump, plus the Kate Steinle verdict and open gloating from usual suspects reminds Whites what’s at stake…

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory. If he stays in office for 8 years, AND he drags the GOP kicking and screaming in the direction of sanity, then it would be a yuge victory.

    My spitball theory is if Trump is in office for 8 years, I see that as potentially running out the clock on the Democrats’ coalition.

    I’m not an expert but if they don’t have an incumbent Pres or VP after 2020, I can’t really think of anyone they could seriously run in 2024. After 7 more years of anti-White anti-Trump hysteria, the dems White voter support will likely have eroded to all but a tiny core in the blue archipelago. It’s possible for them to win without any normie Whites, but how likely is that really? That’s just one way could crack up, could easily succumb to infighting between blacks and hispanics or the homo/pedo gang vs everyone else, with no unifying leader at national level. And even if the coalition holds together, as The Sex Thing ™ rolls on continuing to eject White and jewish males from the dem apparatus, who is going to be left that can competently wield the thing? Like the dems could go full race baiting and max nonWhite turnout and win that way, but to do that somebody still needs to literally operate the campaign to make that happen and it ain’t gonna be frizzy haired mulattas.

    This is contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe (“assume a can opener”). But I could see Bannon’s prediction of governing for the next 50 years coming true pretty easily IF we can keep Trump around for a second term.

    Read More
    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Jason Roberts
    Well said. Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states (Colorado & Virginia are my predictions for 2024). I think Trump won every state where there was a BLM riot (except MN).
    , @Beckow
    "

    contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe (“assume a can opener”)
     
    "

    It would depend on what the 'war' was. I think Trump could make it through - or even prosper - with some wars.

    Financial catastrophes come every 30-40 years, or so. We have just had one in 2007-8. The system is quite robust for a while. What we will get is a burst of inflation to grow the economy, deflate the debts and hide all the sh..t that has accumulated. Actually under Obama there was a half-hearted attempt to go for the inflationary solution, but they forgot to close the borders. So cheap labor kept on destroying the labor market and it fizzled out. If Trump manages to just reduce the labor inflows (and some job outflows by outsourcing oversees), US will have a tight labor market in a year or two. Then the fun begins.

    The austerity wealth-holders are hysterically afraid that their 'assets' will be devalued by inflation. They are throwing a hissy fit. But it is inflation or something much worse, so they will eventually be over-ruled. Trump has lined it up fairly well - the solutions were always there, he simply picked up the obvious. Fixing the labor market by restricting (foreign) labor supply is both easy and relatively painless. It has been done before - check the economic framework during most booms in the past.
    , @Thomas

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory.
     
    If Trump fails to deliver the goods on immigration, we would’ve been in the same place or better with “generic Republican,” ¡Jeb! or “little Marco.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Pretty cool that from his victory we got huge tax cuts for the rich. Immigration restrictions? Sorry, maybe next term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    I'm disappointed (but not shocked) at how little his supporters seem to be willing to demand much of anything from Trump.

    I do think that it's the upcoming Congressional elections that will determine what the Trump Administration can accomplish. What it will actually try to accomplish is an open question...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jack D
    Trump's victory was a 2 sided coin - he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary's self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary's exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve’s list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump’s visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redman
    The speech Trump gave in Arizona after returning from Mexico was a real barn burner. Maybe the best he gave before or since. I remember thinking "maybe this guy's got a shot after all." The perceived waffling on immigration policy was a concern. But when he came out so strongly with that speech (and right after meeting with the Mexican president!) it sent a major message.
    , @Abe
    “Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later” I can’t seem to remember those brilliant Russian anti-Hillary social media ads that everybody knows swayed my vote to Trump.
    , @sabril
    Yeah, the election was close enough that it's difficult to single out any factor which was decisive, but the negative incidents around Hillary -- her health and general unlikeability -- seem pretty important.
    , @Thirdtwin
    "I am not sure if I have thought of Trump’s visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened."

    I have thought often about Trump's visit to Louisiana flood victims many times since it happened. That late August campaign move brought things into stark clarity for many voters. Hillary never made it down there, and Barky showed up a day late and a dollar short. People noticed. Even the MSM was stunned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @White Guy In Japan
    That link is much-much-funnier than your lousy trolling.

    The link should give you a hint. TD is not really a troll although his constant posting gets a little tedious at times.. TD is actually a master at lampooning the thinking of White SJWs and lame-brained Negroes like Tennessee Coates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. I can’t say that it moved the poll numbers much,if at all,but when Hillary,tone deaf as always,released that video address to labor leaders in which she howled,”Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”,I thought,there’s no way we can elect this lunatic.
    It ain’t happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Steve-

    Why this post? Why right now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @James Kabala
    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve's list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump's visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.

    The speech Trump gave in Arizona after returning from Mexico was a real barn burner. Maybe the best he gave before or since. I remember thinking “maybe this guy’s got a shot after all.” The perceived waffling on immigration policy was a concern. But when he came out so strongly with that speech (and right after meeting with the Mexican president!) it sent a major message.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Jack D
    Trump's victory was a 2 sided coin - he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary's self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary's exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    I love what Trump’s done for nationalism and the shock he’s provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.

    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of “presidential” names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I’m a the peak boomer–at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro’s presidency completely about his only interest–himself. The Democrat “bench” is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary–whose “competition” was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated “the next guy”–Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney–while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward “why not me?”–McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands–time for a woman!–and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around … people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown’s ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she’s black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Peak Boomer Post
    , @Anonym
    Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I’m a the peak boomer–at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    I will resist the urge to denigrate the baby boomer generation as a whole (individually there are some good baby boomers).

    I think by depth of field, ability and electability standards, you are looking for a white guy, unless a white female political freak of nature like the Iron Lady happened to be born then. It is difficult to find an electable alternative with sufficient ability in a non-white non-male candidate. Obama helped to poison the well on that one. Now everyone has established their virtue signalling cred on the presidential stage, they are more likely to either vote who they perceive the best candidate to be, or vote along racial lines.

    Black and hispanic candidates tend to be less competent and more corrupt. Asian candidates are not as good verbally and for nearly all the reasons that Asian males struggle in the dating market, they also struggle in the political arena.

    Ok, so now we have established that we are looking for a good white male Democratic presidential candidate. Why can't we find one? Well, for starters the Jewish/Israel lobby selects for cucks, and vets out the non-cucks on both sides of the aisle. Anything they can't swing, the (((media))) will tend to finish off. So we've ended up with mainly candidates by and large who have made it through the cuck filter or a very few candidates who are very careful about what they say, how they say it, and have led Simon-pure lives that would make Jesus look compromised.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/T0006.pdf

    Now in addition to the cuck filter, on the Democrat side you have an identity politics filter that has been operating for quite a while now. For a white male to make it through, I think they have to be self-hating. Maybe they are homosexual, maybe they have non-white relatives or children, maybe they are just koolaid drinking true believers. In any case, this tends to strongly discourage candidates who have a good sense of wanting what is best for the citizens of the country, and white people in the USA. That is the reality of the coalition of the fringes that makes up the Democratic voting base and its selection aparatus.

    I have touched on this earlier, but these days it is much easier to research and get evidence on people to either blackmail them or destroy them with attack advertisement. The establishment are set on making whites a disempowered minority, and stealing their wealth through wealth transfer. As a result, anyone who the establishment doesn't like will find it exceedingly difficult to run. Most realise it and don't run. This is a shame generally because a lot of movers and shakers have some dirt on them. They are risk takers who do things like calling things as they see them, or indulging in sexual opportunity.

    This is what omnipresent CCTV, recording devices and the internet has brought us. There are probably other things that have brought this about but that's my take on it. Of course, a compromised history is great from the establishment perspective to keep politicians in line, but it prevents reform-minded individuals from being elected.

    It is a very sad thing for the democratic process where you have to have the ability to be a billionaire, have spent your career years doing that and then want to risk everything to run for office, so as to be a true reform candidate.
    , @Beckow

    "Democrats sure have the demographics on their side"
     
    Do they? I agree with your other points, but buying into the 'changing demographics' mantra is wrong.

    First of all, among the voters, whites (broadly defined) are at least 70% - and will remain so for at least 2-3 presidential cycles. Trump actually had a huge, untapped white vote reserve, people who didn't vote, voted for Clinton reluctantly because of media campaign against Trump, women who went for the symbolic thing, people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump because of uncertainty (he was new after all).

    30% POC is not monolithic. America has 'enlarged' white people definition in the past. There are white Latinos, white leaning Asians and ME-ners. There are working class blacks and Hispanics who vote the economy.

    Democrats have very little on their side that they can count on: activist minorities, LGB..s, government employees, older boomers, liberal big-city morons (of all colours and hues).

    If there is 'Peace and Prosperity', Dems are done. That's why they are hysterically trying to prevent it, or to pretend that what is happening is not Peace and Prosperity. The crucial voting block (middle of the country working people of all kinds) has been abandoned by Dems. Trump (and Bernie before) was the first payback. There will be more. You can do a lot with identity politics and Wall Street money, but you cannot win country-wide elections with it. I think it is Trump who has demographics on his side.
    , @Louis Renault

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side
     
    No, they have chosen the side of Identity politics with "American" being the one all the rest are against.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @AnotherDad
    Those are the weeks that defined the contest--naionalist versus elite establishment snob--that gave Trump a solid path to victory.

    Hillary's "basket of deplorables" exposing to the millions who pay no attention, the reality that she's an establishment apparatchik with thinly disguised contempt for the American people, while reinforcing the female part of her tedious church lady personality with the precious "basket". At that point a smarter, more ideological and rhetorically asute Trump would have had a clear path to victory.

    But those four weeks didn't actually win the thing, because of Trump's weaknesses. His lazy and incompetent first debate performance--never bringing up his core issue of immigration in the context of all the economic and jobs questions, never bothering to even try to nail Hillary to her Goldman Sachs patrons, letting Hillary pretend she's middle class by citing her father and doing nothing--cost Trump a clear victory. Trump was just super fortunate that he was running against Hillary, a woman who is incredibly unappealling on pretty much every level--personality, policy, corruption, incompetence.

    This thing was so close any of mistakes or successes was potentially decisive. But i would give the nod to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment as the critical moment. Ironically it was Hillary's emission that sired a Trump victory.

    Hillary Clinton had the worst combination of traits:

    - She was snobby without the least bit of noblesse oblige to anyone but her vibrant rabble.

    - She was part of the Washington establishment but had shown herself to be grossly incompetent when holding high office. An ambassador and his security team were brutally killed on her watch and tens of thousands of her top secret documents disappeared into cyberspace. This was noted by Americans who’d ever served in the military or handled classified documents.

    - She was rich, White and privileged but took the side of cop killers after the BLM Dallas massacre.

    - She was sanctimonious but her Clinton Foundation charity was clearly a scam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @James Kabala
    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve's list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump's visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.

    “Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later” I can’t seem to remember those brilliant Russian anti-Hillary social media ads that everybody knows swayed my vote to Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    If anything, Russia Today seemed to be neutral or lean slightly in Hillary's favor during the election.

    https://www.rt.com/

    , @Cagey Beast
    ... but we all remember the stuff that came out of 4chan, even if we don't know the name of that site. See the YouTube video entitled "The Year Where 4Chan Won" by NeatoBurrito Productions for details.

    I'm convinced that so much of what the anti-Trump "Resistance" still thinks were Russian trolls were overwhelmingly just a bunch of White American kids, with additional help from the rest of the West.
    , @NOTA
    I think the Russian ads were overwhelmigly not intended to support Trump, they were intended to stir shit up, get people mad at each other. They almost certainly expected Hillary to win (almost everyone did), and they were probably just hoping to give her the occasional domestic politics headache to make it harder for her to get stuff done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. I didn’t know that Hillary’s deplorables comment was made at an event organized by Big Homo (I had assumed it was made at some beltway policy wank-fest). That makes it even better.

    Of course, the media kept her movements and doings largely hidden. How many people know that Hillary attended a big Rothschild fundraiser, or that she attended the Bilderberger meeting. The media, just by virtue of being lazy hacks, let alone because they are in the tank for the Democrats, seldom bring up Who/Whom issues. Because, if they did, it might lead to a lot of people realizing who exactly are the whos that are whoming them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Shouting Thomas
    That's what People of Color said 30 years ago... "People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy."

    30 years from now, People of Color will still be failing and there will be a new theory on how white supremacy is the cause of their failure.

    Maybe People of Color should try blaming their failure on themselves.

    There is an entire governmental and media edifice dedicated to hiding the fact of various parallel social systems and for punishing those who notice and object to subsidizing the parallels. Those may be black and white, domestic and foreign, you get the drift. In a more rational world, such differences would be spotlighted and plausible solutions broached. When stakeholders have too much at risk in one system or another, or in preserving the artifice, then they also have extra incentive to maintain their relative positions. At some point, the cracks begin to appear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abe

    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.
     
    Another reminder that if you give back the # of votes by which the Libertarian Party candidate overperformed in 2016 (~2 million) on the assumption that most of these represent #NeverTrump right-leaning normies, and then the 700K that went to explicitly #NeverTrump spoiler candidate Edgar McMullin, Trump wins the popular vote too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. A fun but useless exercise is to speculate how things would have played out if the press was alt-right rather than (((alt-left))). Without almost a total complete media monopoly and block-aid of the right over the last so many decades, the left would be in far worse shape. The Democrats pissed and moaned about how much free press Trump got, but rarely mentioned that 90% of it was negative. Apparently, in his case, there is no such thing as bad press.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @James Kabala
    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve's list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump's visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.

    Yeah, the election was close enough that it’s difficult to single out any factor which was decisive, but the negative incidents around Hillary — her health and general unlikeability — seem pretty important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @eD
    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.

    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.

    Another reminder that if you give back the # of votes by which the Libertarian Party candidate overperformed in 2016 (~2 million) on the assumption that most of these represent #NeverTrump right-leaning normies, and then the 700K that went to explicitly #NeverTrump spoiler candidate Edgar McMullin, Trump wins the popular vote too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Fortunately, the # of votes is not what counts, it's the number of electoral votes. So if they run lots of TV commercials in CA and Hillary gets 95% of the popular vote in CA (the way she did in DC) instead of 60 or 70%, it makes no difference.
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    It's possible the outright majority of Libertarian party voters in 2016 were former Obama voters, in say 2012; the modal Libertarian party voter might even have been a Bernie primary supporter. This is not the case for McMullin, obviously, his voters were "NeverTrumpers" but for people not paying attention it's almost unbelievable how many disaffected anti-establishment voters went all over the place (it makes little sense for Bernie supporters to have voted for Johnson's ticket, doesn't mean they didn't)

    Considering the polls were impossibly wrong and dishonest and post election and exit polls didn't help it's hard to figure out the exact picture of third party votes. It's definitely not what msm propaganda holds these days.

    Less than half of Bernie voters went for Hillary in the general, but it's unclear the exact split. Trump supporters and crazy media brag about Trump having way more Bernie supporters than he did, which was definitely under 2 million, but there were so many third party votes and also people not voting or casting irrelevant (eg uncounted write-in) votes.

    Trump in general did little to win the election; Hillary was just never ahead in the first place. If anything Hillary was even further behind months out but the p***yGate scandal shored up her vote among poorly-informed women voters. All other campaign incidents and October surprises matter even less, and of course Comey had no meaningful impact on the voting results.
    , @Travis
    excellent point...The GOP never-Trump movement was a significant reason Trump lost the popular vote. While many never-Trump Republicans did vote for Hillary (such as George Bush) , millions voted for Gary Johnson and McMullin. If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Abe
    “Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later” I can’t seem to remember those brilliant Russian anti-Hillary social media ads that everybody knows swayed my vote to Trump.

    If anything, Russia Today seemed to be neutral or lean slightly in Hillary’s favor during the election.

    https://www.rt.com/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Abe
    “Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later” I can’t seem to remember those brilliant Russian anti-Hillary social media ads that everybody knows swayed my vote to Trump.

    … but we all remember the stuff that came out of 4chan, even if we don’t know the name of that site. See the YouTube video entitled “The Year Where 4Chan Won” by NeatoBurrito Productions for details.

    I’m convinced that so much of what the anti-Trump “Resistance” still thinks were Russian trolls were overwhelmingly just a bunch of White American kids, with additional help from the rest of the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I forgot to mention this as well when I was saying it wasn't the Russians behind the pro-Trump avalanche on social media:
    Palmer Luckey: The Facebook Near-Billionaire Secretly Funding Trump’s Meme Machine
    Palmer Luckey—founder of Oculus—is funding a Trump group that circulates dirty memes about Hillary Clinton.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-near-billionaire-secretly-funding-trumps-meme-machine
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I used to be opposed to a national ID card on libertarian, anti-gov grounds, but now I see it as the best way to stymie illegal voting during federal elections.

    Surely Trump is looking ahead to 2020 and doing what it takes to secure his next victory. Somewhere in his calculus is the huge number of illegal voters who pulled the D lever. Think about the felons, the illegal aliens, etc. — if he could stop them from voting in FEDERAL elections, which he can with a national ID card, his victory would be assured.

    To win 2020, Trump can …
    1) increase turn-out of Trumpeters
    2) win over some more of the never-Trumpers in the R party
    3) depress the legitimate D vote
    4) get rid of illegal voters, almost all of whom are D.

    No brainer, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Yep, I am a libertarian who thinks we should have a national ID card.
    , @Fran Macadam
    You'll need a compulsory chip implant in the forehead to make it work, so that none, great or small, can buy, sell, work or eat without it.

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Don’t forget Sept. 7! That was the day of NBC’s commander in chief forum where Matt Lauer asked Hillary about her illegal server. His questioning caused her to fumble and stammer and you could clearly see she was losing her cool. Then afterwards, there were reports of her blowing a gasket and insulting her handlers. Not a good look for the most qualified candidate in history. Then 2 days later, she gave the disastrous “deplorables” speech, which seems logical given the anger simmering within her pickled brain.

    Lauer’s been getting a lot of abuse lately, but I’ll always thank him for that moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. at sold-out gay Wall Street fundraiser

    I know what you mean, but think about it: Wall Street has sold out to gays much more than vice versa. And unnecessarily so.

    One of your best observations was that Richard Florida was wrong; pink follows green, not the other way around, which explains why Castro is just up the hill from the Wall Street of the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    One of your best observations was that Richard Florida was wrong; pink follows green, not the other way around ...

    Yes, wasn't it that first you get the money from an old fashioned and unglamorous source of wealth like oil or stocks & bonds; then you get the wealthy White men; then you get the "pink" hair dressers, interior decorators, art gallery owners, dog groomers, etc, etc to cater to the White men's wife and daughters?

    If I'm remembering it correctly, Mr. Sailer's formula could be called the "Newfoundland tricolour theory of gentrification". It will catch on like wildfire because everyone immediately knows what that flag looks like, right? If not, here's a primer:

    http://www.caperace.com/newfoundland-tricolour
    or
    http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/newfoundland-republic-flag.php
    , @Stan Adams
    Urban professional gays tend to have *a lot* more disposable income than normal folks ("breeders," in gayspeak), who piss their money away on such frivolities as college tuition and dental work for their kids.

    This strip was published 12 years ago. I doubt Scott Adams could get away with it today. (Even then, it was risky.)
    http://dilbert.com/strip/2005-01-19
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Thanks Steve, for reminding us what fun those days were, especially September 11th. I don’t think I stopped chuckling from that day onwards. I just couldn’t see how we could lose after that and, mirabile dictu, we didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. OFF TOPIC:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/11/28/564054556/what-really-happened-at-the-school-where-every-senior-got-into-college

    I assume everyone has seen this by now. My take is that if kids don’t want to attend high school, why force them? the one teen they interviewed was holding down a job already. She doesn’t need the diploma obviously to be a productive adult so just let her go. Maybe later she’ll decide to get more education on her own and then she’ll be motivated.

    the whole school sounds like a farce and more of a middle-class jobs programs for the people in charge. Let’s stop pretending here and make the last two years of HS voluntary. And maybe charge the parents a bit of $ so they’ll be motivated to make the kids actually apply themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @AnotherDad

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?
     
    I love what Trump's done for nationalism and the shock he's provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.


    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of "presidential" names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I'm a the peak boomer--at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro's presidency completely about his only interest--himself. The Democrat "bench" is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary--whose "competition" was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated "the next guy"--Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney--while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward "why not me?"--McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands--time for a woman!--and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around ... people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown's ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she's black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.

    Peak Boomer Post

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Reg Cæsar

    at sold-out gay Wall Street fundraiser
     
    I know what you mean, but think about it: Wall Street has sold out to gays much more than vice versa. And unnecessarily so.

    One of your best observations was that Richard Florida was wrong; pink follows green, not the other way around, which explains why Castro is just up the hill from the Wall Street of the West.

    One of your best observations was that Richard Florida was wrong; pink follows green, not the other way around …

    Yes, wasn’t it that first you get the money from an old fashioned and unglamorous source of wealth like oil or stocks & bonds; then you get the wealthy White men; then you get the “pink” hair dressers, interior decorators, art gallery owners, dog groomers, etc, etc to cater to the White men’s wife and daughters?

    If I’m remembering it correctly, Mr. Sailer’s formula could be called the “Newfoundland tricolour theory of gentrification”. It will catch on like wildfire because everyone immediately knows what that flag looks like, right? If not, here’s a primer:

    http://www.caperace.com/newfoundland-tricolour

    or

    http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/newfoundland-republic-flag.php

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. These threads are always good for showing how the people who got it wrong during the election still don’t have a clue what happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. People are sick of Politicians, Brexit showed it could be done and Trump sealed the deal. I still enjoy watching videos from Election Night:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    “…white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe.”

    Even the tea in China believes in White Supremacy. It can never be defeated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. The “Pepe!” heckle was the moment the timeline switched.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    More from Very Smart Brothas:

    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/do-white-people-have-cousins-1820685828

    … White people, however, generally don’t seem to have the same reverence for cousin culture. … They seem to live in a cousinless universe.

    … Now, to be fair, I’ve heard that Southern white people are generally more into cousin culture. But why hasn’t that affinity for cousins stretched up North or out West?

    I have my theories. My favorite one? America is a generally unwelcoming place for us, so we need all the family we can get, whereas white people can go anywhere and be met with smiles, so they just don’t need that extra layer of family cushion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Cagey Beast
    ... but we all remember the stuff that came out of 4chan, even if we don't know the name of that site. See the YouTube video entitled "The Year Where 4Chan Won" by NeatoBurrito Productions for details.

    I'm convinced that so much of what the anti-Trump "Resistance" still thinks were Russian trolls were overwhelmingly just a bunch of White American kids, with additional help from the rest of the West.

    I forgot to mention this as well when I was saying it wasn’t the Russians behind the pro-Trump avalanche on social media:
    Palmer Luckey: The Facebook Near-Billionaire Secretly Funding Trump’s Meme Machine
    Palmer Luckey—founder of Oculus—is funding a Trump group that circulates dirty memes about Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-near-billionaire-secretly-funding-trumps-meme-machine

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @27 year old
    Hopefully this week's passage of the tax cuts for oligarchs and the Jerusalem embassy thing (whatever that is) will be the start of sealing Trump's re-election in 2020, as some factions of the hostile ruling class back off or maybe even come around to Trump, plus the Kate Steinle verdict and open gloating from usual suspects reminds Whites what's at stake...

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory. If he stays in office for 8 years, AND he drags the GOP kicking and screaming in the direction of sanity, then it would be a yuge victory.

    My spitball theory is if Trump is in office for 8 years, I see that as potentially running out the clock on the Democrats' coalition.

    I'm not an expert but if they don't have an incumbent Pres or VP after 2020, I can't really think of anyone they could seriously run in 2024. After 7 more years of anti-White anti-Trump hysteria, the dems White voter support will likely have eroded to all but a tiny core in the blue archipelago. It's possible for them to win without any normie Whites, but how likely is that really? That's just one way could crack up, could easily succumb to infighting between blacks and hispanics or the homo/pedo gang vs everyone else, with no unifying leader at national level. And even if the coalition holds together, as The Sex Thing (tm) rolls on continuing to eject White and jewish males from the dem apparatus, who is going to be left that can competently wield the thing? Like the dems could go full race baiting and max nonWhite turnout and win that way, but to do that somebody still needs to literally operate the campaign to make that happen and it ain't gonna be frizzy haired mulattas.

    This is contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe ("assume a can opener"). But I could see Bannon's prediction of governing for the next 50 years coming true pretty easily IF we can keep Trump around for a second term.

    Well said. Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states (Colorado & Virginia are my predictions for 2024). I think Trump won every state where there was a BLM riot (except MN).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states

    This always can be arranged. Are you certain that Dallas and New Orleans shootings were not synthetic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Flash! The election was invalid because now-known sexual harrassers spoke disrespectfully to Hillary:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/matt-lauer-hillary-clinton.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    That's okay. She had her own men feeding softball questions to female reporters:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqYQ2OtggPw
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Abe

    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.
     
    Another reminder that if you give back the # of votes by which the Libertarian Party candidate overperformed in 2016 (~2 million) on the assumption that most of these represent #NeverTrump right-leaning normies, and then the 700K that went to explicitly #NeverTrump spoiler candidate Edgar McMullin, Trump wins the popular vote too.

    Fortunately, the # of votes is not what counts, it’s the number of electoral votes. So if they run lots of TV commercials in CA and Hillary gets 95% of the popular vote in CA (the way she did in DC) instead of 60 or 70%, it makes no difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    it’s ORANGE pekoe tiny ,quite delicious

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. OT, but it looks like when they finally came for Garrison Keillor, that was the line for many people.

    Some sample stuff:

    http://www.twincities.com/2017/11/30/garrison-keillor-firing-prompts-backlash-from-his-fans/

    Or read the comments from fans on somebody speaking up about an encounter with Keillor that she feels was questionable:

    http://www.citypages.com/arts/pastor-was-a-huge-fan-of-garrison-keillors-until-the-time-he-pawed-at-her-chest/461292933

    And Keillor ain’t taking it lying down:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/garrison-keillor-remains-defiant-in-statement-about-his-firing.html

    Some claim the quick firing of Keillor is an overreaction by MPR after they allegedly dragged their feet firing Oreskes.

    Anyhow, will be interesting to see if Keillor can demonstrate that this stuff is sometimes survivable. Based upon what is known, sounds like charges are thin gruel but who knows. Anecdotally, he is consistently said to be a jerk, so….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Funny thing is how Hillary and Bill have become so much more healthy. Back during those weeks to which Steve alludes, Hillary was supposedly on daily life support, etc, and Bill had HIV or Parkinsons. None were expected to live very long into 2017.

    Lots and lots of people believed this with every fiber of their being back then.

    For better or worse, Hillary has demonstrated she’s still got a lot of fight in her, so all that belief in her frail condition was just a giant mass psychosis.

    So everyone was crazy, no? Is that bad? Most of the people who believed this crazy thing did elect Trump, it helped them, so was crazy good for them? It did achieve its functional purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Perhaps it's easier when you can choose to rest up at will and nobody asks about your visits to the hospital.

    I wonder if Hillary would have survived a presidency. It turned Obama into a grey troll. Bill looked ready to shrivel up and blow away when his victims turned up at the debate. (Talk about turning the tables!)

    Trump still seems hale and hearty, even though he campaigned harder.
    , @NOTA
    During the campaign, she was constantly on the road, shaking hands with sick people, giving speeches every night, under massive stress, and probably not getting enugh sleep. My guess is that that was pretty hard on her—I’d find it pretty wearing, and I’m twenty years younger than she is. Trump seemed to handle it better. My cynical side says he built up that endurance by all those years of doing the playboy/jet set lifestyle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. “So if they run lots of TV commercials in CA and Hillary gets 95% of the popular vote in CA (the way she did in DC) instead of 60 or 70%, it makes no difference.”

    While I’m happy with the election results, I’m not sure I’m in favor of the electoral college. I lived in Georgia for 12 years and have now lived in California almost that long. I haven’t seen a TV commercial for president in all that time, as GA was solidly red and CA is solidly blue. As a Republican in CA, my presidential vote is basically worthless.

    Why should only four or five swing states pick the president? The arguments I’ve heard in favor of the electoral college suggest small states will be ignored in the elections. I don’t see why that would be the case when everyone’s vote would carry equal weight absent the electoral college.
    .
    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    There's this little thing called vote fraud. The EC disincentivizes vote fraud, in the Presidential race, in heavily blue or red states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Trump won because he was a celebrity running on an “America First” platform against a crummy, unpopular opponent. Even so, he almost blew it. He had room to make a lot of mistakes, which he most definitely did and does.

    This notion that Trump won because he’s some kind of six-dimensional sui generis genius campaigner is fake news. It creates the impression that no sane person would have voted for him on the issues, that they were all hypnotized into doing it.

    The truth is, the voters got a real choice for once, and they voted hoping the “good Trump” would show up in January and not the “clown Trump”. We have gotten some of both so far and that’s the way it will probably go from here on. If Trump’s only lasting achievement is having blown open the door on discussing immigration, globalism and SJW bullshit, it will have been worth it.

    OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their “Trump directed Flynn” story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000, Vinteuil
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their “Trump directed Flynn” story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?"

    No.
    , @Benjaminl
    I see countless examples on Twitter of someone pointing out an initial, inflammatory, erroneous report that gets 50,000 Retweets, while the later retraction gets 500 Retweets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Looks as if Stephen Colbert will be trying to resurrect interest in harassment claims against Trump Monday night, as Billy Bush, he of the Access Hollywood Trump tapes, a man trying to resurrect his career, is his guest.

    I detest Colbert. I never watch his show yet clips of him on other shows are omnipresent.

    I’d love to see Trump destroy Kimmel and Colbert so that their faces never again appear anywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. I’m impressed with Kamala Harris’ cultural sympathies. The most anglophilic WASP could not do better. She’ll be ok, she has the right amount of respect for whatever role the legacy of Western Civ is to have in the emerging civilizational mashup:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    She's a lawyer posing for a picture against a background of shelves of law books. Does that reassure you?
    , @Eagle Eye
    Kamala Harris is a child of the British Empire on both her mother's and her father's side and understands the importance of status symbols, pomp and circumstance.

    She is very adept at getting her way as a woman, including through a well-timed affair with San Francisco mayor and California power broker Willie Brown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    You’re stupider than I thought.

    Black Americans don’t actually have that high a birthrate….Latinos have a higher birthrate and for both groups their growth rate is in decline and or is plateauing.

    Anyway Trump can nip this in the ass in two weeks if he wanted to. On the one hand he has to stop this “prosecution creep” from the Deep State parasites. Did Trump commit an impeachable offense? Of course not but they’ll keep pushing this shit til they Trump up some obstruction of Justice bullcrap.

    Trump needs to sick Sessions in them NOW! Indict Mueller and Comey for the Uranium scandal and end this fishing expedition papered over as a corruption investigation.

    THEN take a cue from Shinzo Abes LDP party that has ruled Japan for most of the postwar period.

    Sideline the libertarian anarchist loons and do a mix of New Deal mass employment infrastructure programs financed by Fed stimulus programs and Reagan type hand outs to defense contractors.

    And pin the defense contracts to hiring targets. Meaning the defense companies can only get their contracts if they hire AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    Then make them closed shop union jobs, enforce e verify and cut off welfare and citizenship to anchor babies. The money saved from that shit can give govt jobs and free healthcare to white and black Americans….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Now that he has given the GOP their tax cut, his presidency is over AFAICS.

    His economic nationalist agenda has very little support in Congress and now he has nothing to coerce them withn

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @International Jew
    Flash! The election was invalid because now-known sexual harrassers spoke disrespectfully to Hillary:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/matt-lauer-hillary-clinton.html

    That’s okay. She had her own men feeding softball questions to female reporters:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Remember Seth “The Example” Rich, all but identified by Julian Assange as the “Russian hacker.”
    Remember the Berniebot who wrote an op-ed describing how he actually read WikiLeaks, saw that the emails proved that California was thrown, and voted for Trump. Remember the “Flight 93 Election,” the Foundation/Mule metaphor, and Scott Adams’ assistance.
    Remember the aggressive ethnic invasion of white, rural, probably apolitical communities, who woke up one morning to discover that they now had something called a murder rate because Julian Castro was experimenting on them.
    Remember the image of a man punched in the face, who is then immediately assured that he was not punched in the face.
    Remember Obama personally encouraging Ferguson rioters.
    Remember the retired judge who came to Ferguson to help process arrestees, and whose proppsal was that black people be allowed to break the law.
    Remember Ferguson rioters complaining that Soros was paying black protesters less money than white ones.
    Remember Dallas police, exhausted and overstretched by fake protesters disrupting traffic over a fake cause, getting picked off from an elevated position by a man who believed the non-stop media drumbeat about blacks being hunted for sport, at a time of statiscally low police killings. Remember the police executions elsewhere.
    Remember the “joke” photos of helpless, sexualized children, the “art” depicting helpless, unclothed, and miserable childen, the “movie” proposal that just happened to describe the situation of Antonin Scalia’s death, and the video of the party where people talk about enjoying sex with children, and the media declaring that none of that ever existed. Or at least, that you weren’t allowed to see it.
    Remember the Clinton apparatus diverting its resources and attention to rescue a woman who was attempting to move Haitian children to the US by falsely claiming they were orphans.
    Remember the entire Democratic congressional delegation relying on Pakistani intelligence agents for their IT services, and Little Debbie threatening a police officer to protect them.
    Remember when /pol/ was not all botspam and sourceless one-line one-posts and obvious defamation and data-mining.
    And remember that if you’re going to San Francisco, firearms stolen from federal agents sometimes magically discharge by themselves, and cause a negligent homicide, but that’s not a crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Remember the “joke” photos of helpless, sexualized children, the “art” depicting helpless, unclothed, and miserable children...

    Yes, this is worth mentioning too: the Podesta brothers weird and dark art collections and "spirit cooking". You don't have to be an Evangelical Christian to find all that stuff deeply troubling and to take as further evidence that the Swamp urgently needed draining.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Somebody said that Hillary Clinton missed a scheduled visit to Wisconsin in 2016 because of the June 12 mass killing in Orlando, Florida. The Clinton campaign postponed the June 12, 2016 visit to Wisconsin because of the mass killing but never did return. Hillary Clinton had 5 months to make a campaign visit to Wisconsin but she never went back there.

    The Alt-Right speech was baby boomer insanity kicking into high gear for baby boomer Hillary Clinton. Blacks probably thought she was talking about a position in football and Whites just thought it was more nonsense.

    IMMIGRATION was the issue that won the states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump. Ann Coulter was the most important political figure to prod Trump into making the immigration issue the wedge to split Whites Without College Degrees away from the Democrats.

    Obamacare stole money away from Medicare to give health coverage to foreigners and illegal aliens. Trump went out of his way to tell older White voters in Florida that he would defend and protect Social Security and Medicare. Older White Florida voters originally from the Great Lakes states and the Northeast went for Trump over Hillary Clinton in Florida. That is why the Democrats are encouraging Puerto Ricans to move to Florida.

    Steve Sailer Mentions the Pepe Frog — The Alt-Right kids had fun with that damn frog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    We will replace you

    How was your Siberian vacation, Mr. Khrushchev?

    (Speaking of the area near Mongolia, I would guess that you’re too much of a Mongoloid to get that historical reference.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Reg Cæsar

    at sold-out gay Wall Street fundraiser
     
    I know what you mean, but think about it: Wall Street has sold out to gays much more than vice versa. And unnecessarily so.

    One of your best observations was that Richard Florida was wrong; pink follows green, not the other way around, which explains why Castro is just up the hill from the Wall Street of the West.

    Urban professional gays tend to have *a lot* more disposable income than normal folks (“breeders,” in gayspeak), who piss their money away on such frivolities as college tuition and dental work for their kids.

    This strip was published 12 years ago. I doubt Scott Adams could get away with it today. (Even then, it was risky.)

    http://dilbert.com/strip/2005-01-19

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Jack D
    Trump's victory was a 2 sided coin - he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary's self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary's exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    “Would Trump have won against a better Democratic candidate?”

    That question answers itself, considering how close the election was. Unless by “better” you mean more able to rack up meaningless popular votes, of course a better opponent would’ve beaten him. Because there wasn’t that much ground to make up, and Trump is remarkably unpopular among certain segments. (Which is also, ironically,the reason he won. Because of all the free press from haters and the fact that his base gets energized from the right people hating him.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @AnotherDad
    Those are the weeks that defined the contest--naionalist versus elite establishment snob--that gave Trump a solid path to victory.

    Hillary's "basket of deplorables" exposing to the millions who pay no attention, the reality that she's an establishment apparatchik with thinly disguised contempt for the American people, while reinforcing the female part of her tedious church lady personality with the precious "basket". At that point a smarter, more ideological and rhetorically asute Trump would have had a clear path to victory.

    But those four weeks didn't actually win the thing, because of Trump's weaknesses. His lazy and incompetent first debate performance--never bringing up his core issue of immigration in the context of all the economic and jobs questions, never bothering to even try to nail Hillary to her Goldman Sachs patrons, letting Hillary pretend she's middle class by citing her father and doing nothing--cost Trump a clear victory. Trump was just super fortunate that he was running against Hillary, a woman who is incredibly unappealling on pretty much every level--personality, policy, corruption, incompetence.

    This thing was so close any of mistakes or successes was potentially decisive. But i would give the nod to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment as the critical moment. Ironically it was Hillary's emission that sired a Trump victory.

    Trump personally didn’t tie Hillary to the cloud people, but her comments did. Anyway, you think people actually paid attention to stories about her father? No one thinks of her as middle-class. She’s the millionaire wife of a former president who was in Washington for a generation. That’s her profile.

    Of all things to criticize Trump about, not calling out her non-middle-classedness is a bizarre one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Of all things to criticize Trump about, not calling out her non-middle-classedness is a bizarre one.
     
    I'm recalling specific incidents in the debate that I remember as missed opportunities.

    But the larger point that Republicans keep letting Democrats--the parasite party, the "coalition of the fringes" party, the dumbbell party of plutocrats and peons--pretend that they care about "working families" and "the middle class" is a serious glaring and ridiculous failure.

    If you're going to beat the parasite party you have to actually call them out as the parasite party.

    Trump utterly failed to do that with Hillary in the first debate even though she set herself up for it multiple times during the debate. It was certainly a gross missed opportunity and was saved from being a debacle (and costing Trump the election) only because Hillary is just a tedious PCLFH (Protestant Church Lady From Hell).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. A very good insight into the anti cis-gender stale pale male politics of the film Moneyball.

    And also a pretty good critique of Sabermetrics.

    “Moneybull”: An Inquiry Into Media Manipulation

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/01/moneybull-an-inquiry-into-media-manipulation/

    Worth reading and commenting on. It contains some insights that you might have neglected in your own review of the film for Takimag but brings up many of the points you made as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    I keep reading about “White Supremacy” but I’m a little fuzzy on the concept.

    If you look at the history of civilization on this planet with this species – there wasn’t a whole lot of progress until the fifteenth century. Most writers attribute this social stasis to Malthusian factors. When various inventions increased productivity, human fecundity quickly gobbled up the increase and put people right back where they started.

    There were two great centers of human progress – the West (with Rome) an the East (with China). The other areas of the globe – India, the Americas and South East Asia – were distinctly second rate.

    Then suddenly the West began to pile success upon success and we had “The Triumph of the West”. These people were Europeans or European descendants and we enter the modern world . The world of “White Supremacy”. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was a well documented phenomenon. There are many books on this one topic.

    We live in a White Supremacy world but it may end. China is re-emerging as our competitor. But if it isn’t China and the East Asians who come to dominate the world after us it sure won’t be anyone else. South America is improving but only slowly. And Africa is receding in importance. If it isn’t White Supremacy it will surely be Yellow Supremacv.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. I really liked Hillary’s 911 collapse video with the Secret Service agents and Hillary’s large black armored van. It looked like in a movie. I occasionally still watch it.

    It also gave us racist deplorables hope after the late summer looked a bit hopeless.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @sabril
    It's fascinating that people could watch that video and not conclude that in all likelihood she has a serious undisclosed health problem.
    , @Perspective
    I liked the one where she freezes on stage and secret agents run on stage telling her to "stay calm" and "keep talking".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azUpfzDNxpw

    There's also the one where some creative type made a video of her evil laugh:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqYJRc0TJkQ
    , @Pericles
    Or that video of Hillary insanely nodding away with female reporters drawing back in fear. Oops, the bot broke.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gYplpPmbXI

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @AnotherDad

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?
     
    I love what Trump's done for nationalism and the shock he's provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.


    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of "presidential" names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I'm a the peak boomer--at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro's presidency completely about his only interest--himself. The Democrat "bench" is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary--whose "competition" was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated "the next guy"--Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney--while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward "why not me?"--McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands--time for a woman!--and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around ... people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown's ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she's black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.

    Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I’m a the peak boomer–at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    I will resist the urge to denigrate the baby boomer generation as a whole (individually there are some good baby boomers).

    I think by depth of field, ability and electability standards, you are looking for a white guy, unless a white female political freak of nature like the Iron Lady happened to be born then. It is difficult to find an electable alternative with sufficient ability in a non-white non-male candidate. Obama helped to poison the well on that one. Now everyone has established their virtue signalling cred on the presidential stage, they are more likely to either vote who they perceive the best candidate to be, or vote along racial lines.

    Black and hispanic candidates tend to be less competent and more corrupt. Asian candidates are not as good verbally and for nearly all the reasons that Asian males struggle in the dating market, they also struggle in the political arena.

    Ok, so now we have established that we are looking for a good white male Democratic presidential candidate. Why can’t we find one? Well, for starters the Jewish/Israel lobby selects for cucks, and vets out the non-cucks on both sides of the aisle. Anything they can’t swing, the (((media))) will tend to finish off. So we’ve ended up with mainly candidates by and large who have made it through the cuck filter or a very few candidates who are very careful about what they say, how they say it, and have led Simon-pure lives that would make Jesus look compromised.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/T0006.pdf

    Now in addition to the cuck filter, on the Democrat side you have an identity politics filter that has been operating for quite a while now. For a white male to make it through, I think they have to be self-hating. Maybe they are homosexual, maybe they have non-white relatives or children, maybe they are just koolaid drinking true believers. In any case, this tends to strongly discourage candidates who have a good sense of wanting what is best for the citizens of the country, and white people in the USA. That is the reality of the coalition of the fringes that makes up the Democratic voting base and its selection aparatus.

    I have touched on this earlier, but these days it is much easier to research and get evidence on people to either blackmail them or destroy them with attack advertisement. The establishment are set on making whites a disempowered minority, and stealing their wealth through wealth transfer. As a result, anyone who the establishment doesn’t like will find it exceedingly difficult to run. Most realise it and don’t run. This is a shame generally because a lot of movers and shakers have some dirt on them. They are risk takers who do things like calling things as they see them, or indulging in sexual opportunity.

    This is what omnipresent CCTV, recording devices and the internet has brought us. There are probably other things that have brought this about but that’s my take on it. Of course, a compromised history is great from the establishment perspective to keep politicians in line, but it prevents reform-minded individuals from being elected.

    It is a very sad thing for the democratic process where you have to have the ability to be a billionaire, have spent your career years doing that and then want to risk everything to run for office, so as to be a true reform candidate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Trump promised to fix the economy. Hillary promised to fix sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. The electorate decided the economy was more important.

    If the Democrats were smarter they would have fielded someone promising to fix all these things at the same time, like Bill Clinton in 1992.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @reiner Tor
    I really liked Hillary’s 911 collapse video with the Secret Service agents and Hillary’s large black armored van. It looked like in a movie. I occasionally still watch it.

    It also gave us racist deplorables hope after the late summer looked a bit hopeless.

    It’s fascinating that people could watch that video and not conclude that in all likelihood she has a serious undisclosed health problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @AnotherDad

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?
     
    I love what Trump's done for nationalism and the shock he's provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.


    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of "presidential" names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I'm a the peak boomer--at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro's presidency completely about his only interest--himself. The Democrat "bench" is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary--whose "competition" was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated "the next guy"--Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney--while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward "why not me?"--McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands--time for a woman!--and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around ... people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown's ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she's black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.

    “Democrats sure have the demographics on their side”

    Do they? I agree with your other points, but buying into the ‘changing demographics’ mantra is wrong.

    First of all, among the voters, whites (broadly defined) are at least 70% – and will remain so for at least 2-3 presidential cycles. Trump actually had a huge, untapped white vote reserve, people who didn’t vote, voted for Clinton reluctantly because of media campaign against Trump, women who went for the symbolic thing, people who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump because of uncertainty (he was new after all).

    30% POC is not monolithic. America has ‘enlarged’ white people definition in the past. There are white Latinos, white leaning Asians and ME-ners. There are working class blacks and Hispanics who vote the economy.

    Democrats have very little on their side that they can count on: activist minorities, LGB..s, government employees, older boomers, liberal big-city morons (of all colours and hues).

    If there is ‘Peace and Prosperity’, Dems are done. That’s why they are hysterically trying to prevent it, or to pretend that what is happening is not Peace and Prosperity. The crucial voting block (middle of the country working people of all kinds) has been abandoned by Dems. Trump (and Bernie before) was the first payback. There will be more. You can do a lot with identity politics and Wall Street money, but you cannot win country-wide elections with it. I think it is Trump who has demographics on his side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. It was her reaction to Dallas.

    Confirmed she was one of those kind. Normal people not interested in that sort of president, thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Obama's town hall meeting about Dallas also contributed to her decline. His tone-deaf attitude toward the victims, issues, audience and voters was un-Presidential. When he blew off the Lt. Governor's question about recognizing police, you could practically hear the polls dropping.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @27 year old
    Hopefully this week's passage of the tax cuts for oligarchs and the Jerusalem embassy thing (whatever that is) will be the start of sealing Trump's re-election in 2020, as some factions of the hostile ruling class back off or maybe even come around to Trump, plus the Kate Steinle verdict and open gloating from usual suspects reminds Whites what's at stake...

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory. If he stays in office for 8 years, AND he drags the GOP kicking and screaming in the direction of sanity, then it would be a yuge victory.

    My spitball theory is if Trump is in office for 8 years, I see that as potentially running out the clock on the Democrats' coalition.

    I'm not an expert but if they don't have an incumbent Pres or VP after 2020, I can't really think of anyone they could seriously run in 2024. After 7 more years of anti-White anti-Trump hysteria, the dems White voter support will likely have eroded to all but a tiny core in the blue archipelago. It's possible for them to win without any normie Whites, but how likely is that really? That's just one way could crack up, could easily succumb to infighting between blacks and hispanics or the homo/pedo gang vs everyone else, with no unifying leader at national level. And even if the coalition holds together, as The Sex Thing (tm) rolls on continuing to eject White and jewish males from the dem apparatus, who is going to be left that can competently wield the thing? Like the dems could go full race baiting and max nonWhite turnout and win that way, but to do that somebody still needs to literally operate the campaign to make that happen and it ain't gonna be frizzy haired mulattas.

    This is contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe ("assume a can opener"). But I could see Bannon's prediction of governing for the next 50 years coming true pretty easily IF we can keep Trump around for a second term.

    contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe (“assume a can opener”)

    It would depend on what the ‘war’ was. I think Trump could make it through – or even prosper – with some wars.

    Financial catastrophes come every 30-40 years, or so. We have just had one in 2007-8. The system is quite robust for a while. What we will get is a burst of inflation to grow the economy, deflate the debts and hide all the sh..t that has accumulated. Actually under Obama there was a half-hearted attempt to go for the inflationary solution, but they forgot to close the borders. So cheap labor kept on destroying the labor market and it fizzled out. If Trump manages to just reduce the labor inflows (and some job outflows by outsourcing oversees), US will have a tight labor market in a year or two. Then the fun begins.

    The austerity wealth-holders are hysterically afraid that their ‘assets’ will be devalued by inflation. They are throwing a hissy fit. But it is inflation or something much worse, so they will eventually be over-ruled. Trump has lined it up fairly well – the solutions were always there, he simply picked up the obvious. Fixing the labor market by restricting (foreign) labor supply is both easy and relatively painless. It has been done before – check the economic framework during most booms in the past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. It was always bizarre to me that Hillary claimed that she was running on issues and that Trump was not. The opposite was true. Trump talked about concrete issues, while Hillary screeched flapdoodle like, “I have a five-point plan to jump-start the economy!”

    Hillary dedicated her campaign to destroying Trump, while not offering much as an alternative. The Clintons have been known to accuse opponents of pursuing “the politics of personal destruction,” when in fact that’s their specialty. (A friend of mine says that to understand politicians, you have to understand that whatever they say, they mean the opposite. Simplistic, to be sure, but I’m surprised how often it works, i.e., George W. Bush with his “no nation building” and “humble foreign policy.”)

    Hillary was disadvantaged by running after eight years of Obama. The electorate tends to want a change. Presidents who successfully ran on “more of what you’ve had for the last eight years” are the exceptions.

    When competing for the presidency, a woman candidate is going to have to learn to modulate her voice. Hillary’s screechiness at times made me wince. Elizabeth Warren is even worse and I don’t think she has a chance at the presidency (plus too old, of course). Those screechy moments really stick in your mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MB
    Palin was another one that could have definitely used some voice lessons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Did the whole DNC “Guccifer 2″ he said / she said / Russia did it media circus put people off team Hillary?

    There was enormous amount of nastiness, trolling and Pizza, including BLM members escaping the Zoo, possibly faux news tweets and whatnot, but how much of this crap really hit Main Street?

    I can’t even sort those events anymore it was just such an unwholesome mess.

    I reckon we will have to wait another few years for the book to be written on this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. A better documentary would be the these two hours on election night: 8.30 pm to 10:30 pm.
    At 8:30 the left-wing tv people were sneaking glasses of champagne during breaks. At 10:30 they were vomiting said champagne into trash cans under their desks.
    Rainman

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @White Guy In Japan
    That link is much-much-funnier than your lousy trolling.

    The Leonard Pitts links are part of TD’s schtick. He is a right winger who spoofs the Left by posting over the top parodies of brain-dead anti-White screeds. Notice that he uses a self-abusive moniker Tiny D(i)uck. Nobody who was serious about their posts would do that. The Pitts links are part of the joke as he links to a (I’m guessing) real person who sounds even crazier and dumber than his fake TD persona.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    If so, then it doesn't work. He is tedious and unfunny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Abe

    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.
     
    Another reminder that if you give back the # of votes by which the Libertarian Party candidate overperformed in 2016 (~2 million) on the assumption that most of these represent #NeverTrump right-leaning normies, and then the 700K that went to explicitly #NeverTrump spoiler candidate Edgar McMullin, Trump wins the popular vote too.

    It’s possible the outright majority of Libertarian party voters in 2016 were former Obama voters, in say 2012; the modal Libertarian party voter might even have been a Bernie primary supporter. This is not the case for McMullin, obviously, his voters were “NeverTrumpers” but for people not paying attention it’s almost unbelievable how many disaffected anti-establishment voters went all over the place (it makes little sense for Bernie supporters to have voted for Johnson’s ticket, doesn’t mean they didn’t)

    Considering the polls were impossibly wrong and dishonest and post election and exit polls didn’t help it’s hard to figure out the exact picture of third party votes. It’s definitely not what msm propaganda holds these days.

    Less than half of Bernie voters went for Hillary in the general, but it’s unclear the exact split. Trump supporters and crazy media brag about Trump having way more Bernie supporters than he did, which was definitely under 2 million, but there were so many third party votes and also people not voting or casting irrelevant (eg uncounted write-in) votes.

    Trump in general did little to win the election; Hillary was just never ahead in the first place. If anything Hillary was even further behind months out but the p***yGate scandal shored up her vote among poorly-informed women voters. All other campaign incidents and October surprises matter even less, and of course Comey had no meaningful impact on the voting results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @reiner Tor
    I really liked Hillary’s 911 collapse video with the Secret Service agents and Hillary’s large black armored van. It looked like in a movie. I occasionally still watch it.

    It also gave us racist deplorables hope after the late summer looked a bit hopeless.

    I liked the one where she freezes on stage and secret agents run on stage telling her to “stay calm” and “keep talking”.

    There’s also the one where some creative type made a video of her evil laugh:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. There were about a dozen single instances where I thought, “Well, the election’s over. Trump can’t lose.” Of those, the most definitive one was definitely when all those cops got murdered in Texas by a BLM operative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Is Tariq Nasheed an extreme deep cover alt-right troll? At link he says Zimbabewans should “suffer in peace” rather than tolerate the resumption of white agriculture.
    http:// i.4cdn dot org/pol/ 1512250571427.jpg
    Image develops out of Nasheed complaining about the post-Mugabe leadership in Zimbabwe making sensible overtures to white re-investment, including compensation payments to farmers whose land had been appropriated.

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/151775605

    Read More
    • Replies: @MaMu1977
    Tariq Nasheed is mentally retarded, if not actually insane. He's a "sassy black woman" in the body of an adult black male.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGiIYt2kjA

    Sorry for the mobile link.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Leonard Pitts is a racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Two factors that were yuuugely important for Trump’s victory:

    1) The rise of The_Donald on Reddit and the resultant meme warfare it created;
    2) The Trump rallies.

    Item 1 provided very persuasive memes that could be quickly spread across social media platforms to immediately counter whatever the MSM narrative of the day was. And it persuaded in an irreverent, humorous way.

    Item 2 provided us Trump supporters with solid evidence that he actually had a chance. We got to watch packed rally after packed rally, while the MSM kept telling us he didn’t have a chance, polls said he had no shot, who are you gonna believe, us or your lyin’ eyes?

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. @Nico
    Mostly agree but one important caveat is necsssary. There was a theatrical experiment in New York which had a re-enactment of the first debate with Trump cast as a woman and Clinton cast as a man. To the surprise of everyone, including the director, who had intended to show "what men can get away with that women can't," female-Trump came across way better than male-Clinton. Trump was not good in the first debate by debate club handbook standards, I think we can all agree. But Clinton miscalculated her audience bigtime. She took the tone of a condescending school marm and that painted clown-smile would give the willies to anyone watching who'd seen It.

    Here is it. Donna Trump is indeed awesome.

    Read More
    • Agree: el topo, Nico
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Anonymous
    I used to be opposed to a national ID card on libertarian, anti-gov grounds, but now I see it as the best way to stymie illegal voting during federal elections.

    Surely Trump is looking ahead to 2020 and doing what it takes to secure his next victory. Somewhere in his calculus is the huge number of illegal voters who pulled the D lever. Think about the felons, the illegal aliens, etc. -- if he could stop them from voting in FEDERAL elections, which he can with a national ID card, his victory would be assured.

    To win 2020, Trump can ...
    1) increase turn-out of Trumpeters
    2) win over some more of the never-Trumpers in the R party
    3) depress the legitimate D vote
    4) get rid of illegal voters, almost all of whom are D.

    No brainer, right?

    Yep, I am a libertarian who thinks we should have a national ID card.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Spud Boy
    "So if they run lots of TV commercials in CA and Hillary gets 95% of the popular vote in CA (the way she did in DC) instead of 60 or 70%, it makes no difference."

    While I'm happy with the election results, I'm not sure I'm in favor of the electoral college. I lived in Georgia for 12 years and have now lived in California almost that long. I haven't seen a TV commercial for president in all that time, as GA was solidly red and CA is solidly blue. As a Republican in CA, my presidential vote is basically worthless.

    Why should only four or five swing states pick the president? The arguments I've heard in favor of the electoral college suggest small states will be ignored in the elections. I don't see why that would be the case when everyone's vote would carry equal weight absent the electoral college.
    .
    .

    There’s this little thing called vote fraud. The EC disincentivizes vote fraud, in the Presidential race, in heavily blue or red states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @anonguy
    I'm impressed with Kamala Harris' cultural sympathies. The most anglophilic WASP could not do better. She'll be ok, she has the right amount of respect for whatever role the legacy of Western Civ is to have in the emerging civilizational mashup:


    https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/e71648a/2147483647/crop/4050x2700%2B0%2B0/resize/970x970/quality/85/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beam.usnews.com%2Fb3%2Fb1%2Fdfc089e145c2b44f2f8b4ea96bf3%2F171201reportkamala-02-editorial.kamala_02.jpg

    She’s a lawyer posing for a picture against a background of shelves of law books. Does that reassure you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    Is she friends with the guy who actually shot Liberty Valence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Comey helped Trump a lot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    OT/

    From the NYT:

    ‘Intelligent’ Policing and My Innocent Children
    By BÄRÍ A. WILLIAMS DEC. 2, 2017

    …State and local law enforcement agencies have begun to use predictive policing applications fueled by A.I. like HunchLab, which combines historical crime data, moon phases, location, census data and even professional sports team schedules to predict when and where crime will occur and even who’s likely to commit or be a victim of certain crimes.

    The problem with historical crime data is that it’s based upon policing practices that already disproportionately hone in on blacks, Latinos, and those who live in low-income areas.

    This hits close to home. An October 2016 study by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group concluded that if the Oakland Police Department used its 2010 record of drug-crimes information as the basis of an algorithm to guide policing, the department “would have dispatched officers almost exclusively to lower-income, minority neighborhoods,” despite the fact that public-health-based estimates suggest that drug use is much more widespread, taking place in many other parts of the city where my family and I live.

    Source?

    …Without a commitment to ensure that the data being used to fuel A.I. doesn’t replicate historical racism, biases will be built into the foundation of many “intelligent” systems shaping how we live. It’s not that I want this technology to be rejected. There are ways to make A.I. work. But before it is used in law enforcement, it must be thoroughly tested and proven not to disproportionately harm communities of color.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carbon blob
    Love pieces like this. Pretty sure there are cheaper ways to get a computer to tell you what you want to hear.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    But before it is used in law enforcement, it must be thoroughly tested and proven not to disproportionately harm communities of color.
     
    I guess she thinks the police just go around harming people, and all we can ask is that they harm all groups proportionately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. I think this leaves out the crystallizing event for me. When Trump went to visit the flooding in Louisiana. Those crowds yelling “we knew you’d come mr. Trump” made trump look empathetic and presidential and the reluctance of Obama or Hilary to visit amplified the democrats discontent with down scale whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. @Cagey Beast
    The second debate was glorious. Everyone who's ever encountered someone like Hillary Clinton was cheering when he said "you'd be in jail". I bet a lot of Black men decided they can't vote against a magnificent bastard who'd bring the hammer down like that.

    That line was drop-the-mike, walk-off-the-stage perfect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MB
    And that's as far as it went because theatrics trump reality in the media auditions masquerading as debates.
    Grump talked tough, but he's caving on a lot of stuff.
    Hope he doesn't try to prove he's not an empty suit by nuking Rocketman.
    Still, the deplorables are restless and are tired of putting up with status quo.
    Which is why Moore beat the Repug Trump backed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. very disappointed in my fellow swiss-american.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Read More
    • LOL: Thomas
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @AnotherDad

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?
     
    I love what Trump's done for nationalism and the shock he's provided to the Republican party. But he has such obvious negatives in terms of discipline, buffoonery and rhetorical competence that a generic Democrat candidate realistically would have beaten him. He was very fortunate to be running against Hillary.


    However, what your short list shows is how empty the Democratic pantry is. Realistically they should have had a lot of "presidential" names. Millions of Americans were born in the 50s. I'm a the peak boomer--at the absolute apex of peak boomer production curve. And while a bit old by historical presidential standards, by modern aging/medical care standards 2016 would have been prime for my run. But where are all the Democrats my age?

    Eight years of the Clintons sucking all the oxygen from the party. Then no one shining as Bush opposition. Then the magic negro's presidency completely about his only interest--himself. The Democrat "bench" is pathetic.

    And then they run an old retread like Hillary--whose "competition" was an elderly socialist. It used to be the Republicans always nominated "the next guy"--Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney--while the Democratic process was more open and they ended up taking some flyers on guys who put their foot forward "why not me?"--McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama. But identity politics demands--time for a woman!--and flat out old political corruption, stuck them with an obviously crappy compromised candidate.

    You look around ... people mentioning ancients like Joe Biden or Pocahontas, Hillary refusing to go away. And people banding about Willy Brown's ex-mistress and complete newbie senator as presidential timber because she's black and female.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side, but when it comes to politicians, holy cow do they look pathetic.

    The Democrats sure have the demographics on their side

    No, they have chosen the side of Identity politics with “American” being the one all the rest are against.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @guest
    How about just one date?

    July 26, 2016: the Democrat Party nominates Hillary Clinton.

    > July 26, 2016: the Democrat Party nominates Hillary Clinton.

    Democratic Party

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Democrat" is just as good a name for it as "Democratic," if for no other reason than it bothers Democrats to hear it the former way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Hibernian
    She's a lawyer posing for a picture against a background of shelves of law books. Does that reassure you?

    Is she friends with the guy who actually shot Liberty Valence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Succinct analysis. “Basket of deplorables” always struck me as where Ms. Hillary lost her way. Long live my favorite frog Pepe!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. @Desiderius
    It was her reaction to Dallas.

    Confirmed she was one of those kind. Normal people not interested in that sort of president, thanks.

    Obama’s town hall meeting about Dallas also contributed to her decline. His tone-deaf attitude toward the victims, issues, audience and voters was un-Presidential. When he blew off the Lt. Governor’s question about recognizing police, you could practically hear the polls dropping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. “In a section of the book written by Lewandowski, Trump is described as flying on his helicopter when he learns that Manafort has said “Trump shouldn’t be on television anymore, that he shouldn’t be on the Sunday shows” and that Manafort should appear instead. Trump was angrier than Lewandowski had ever seen him, ordering the pilot to lower the altitude so he could make a cellphone call. “Did you say I shouldn’t be on TV on Sunday? I’ll go on TV anytime I g–dam f—ing want and you won’t say another f—ing word about me!” Trump yelled at Manafort, according to Lewandowski. “Tone it down? I wanna turn it up! . . . You’re a political pro? Let me tell you something. I’m a pro at life. I’ve been around a time or two. I know guys like you, with your hair and skin . . .” Lewandowski called it “one of the greatest takedowns in the history of the world.”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/one-greatest-history-world-lewandowski-book-reveals-epic-trump-takedown-manafort/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @ScarletNumber
    > July 26, 2016: the Democrat Party nominates Hillary Clinton.

    Democratic Party

    “Democrat” is just as good a name for it as “Democratic,” if for no other reason than it bothers Democrats to hear it the former way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    No, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. You are revealing your own ignorance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Clyde

    Trump dumps swamp-dweller Paul Manafort.......
     
    This old pro got Donald Trump through, shepherded him through the Republican Convention. How soon they forget. I will say that Manafort did it out of patriotic duty, now look where this landed him. In Mueller's cross hairs and pre-dawn raids.

    Do you honestly think there would have been a Cruz push at the convention without Manafort? I mean, Nevertrumpers are stupid enough, but they’re not that suicidal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Anon
    OT/

    From the NYT:


    ‘Intelligent’ Policing and My Innocent Children
    By BÄRÍ A. WILLIAMS DEC. 2, 2017

    ...State and local law enforcement agencies have begun to use predictive policing applications fueled by A.I. like HunchLab, which combines historical crime data, moon phases, location, census data and even professional sports team schedules to predict when and where crime will occur and even who’s likely to commit or be a victim of certain crimes.

    The problem with historical crime data is that it’s based upon policing practices that already disproportionately hone in on blacks, Latinos, and those who live in low-income areas.

    This hits close to home. An October 2016 study by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group concluded that if the Oakland Police Department used its 2010 record of drug-crimes information as the basis of an algorithm to guide policing, the department “would have dispatched officers almost exclusively to lower-income, minority neighborhoods,” despite the fact that public-health-based estimates suggest that drug use is much more widespread, taking place in many other parts of the city where my family and I live.
     

    Source?

    ...Without a commitment to ensure that the data being used to fuel A.I. doesn’t replicate historical racism, biases will be built into the foundation of many “intelligent” systems shaping how we live. It’s not that I want this technology to be rejected. There are ways to make A.I. work. But before it is used in law enforcement, it must be thoroughly tested and proven not to disproportionately harm communities of color.

     

    Love pieces like this. Pretty sure there are cheaper ways to get a computer to tell you what you want to hear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anon
    OT/

    From the NYT:


    ‘Intelligent’ Policing and My Innocent Children
    By BÄRÍ A. WILLIAMS DEC. 2, 2017

    ...State and local law enforcement agencies have begun to use predictive policing applications fueled by A.I. like HunchLab, which combines historical crime data, moon phases, location, census data and even professional sports team schedules to predict when and where crime will occur and even who’s likely to commit or be a victim of certain crimes.

    The problem with historical crime data is that it’s based upon policing practices that already disproportionately hone in on blacks, Latinos, and those who live in low-income areas.

    This hits close to home. An October 2016 study by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group concluded that if the Oakland Police Department used its 2010 record of drug-crimes information as the basis of an algorithm to guide policing, the department “would have dispatched officers almost exclusively to lower-income, minority neighborhoods,” despite the fact that public-health-based estimates suggest that drug use is much more widespread, taking place in many other parts of the city where my family and I live.
     

    Source?

    ...Without a commitment to ensure that the data being used to fuel A.I. doesn’t replicate historical racism, biases will be built into the foundation of many “intelligent” systems shaping how we live. It’s not that I want this technology to be rejected. There are ways to make A.I. work. But before it is used in law enforcement, it must be thoroughly tested and proven not to disproportionately harm communities of color.

     

    But before it is used in law enforcement, it must be thoroughly tested and proven not to disproportionately harm communities of color.

    I guess she thinks the police just go around harming people, and all we can ask is that they harm all groups proportionately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Trump won because he was a celebrity running on an "America First" platform against a crummy, unpopular opponent. Even so, he almost blew it. He had room to make a lot of mistakes, which he most definitely did and does.

    This notion that Trump won because he's some kind of six-dimensional sui generis genius campaigner is fake news. It creates the impression that no sane person would have voted for him on the issues, that they were all hypnotized into doing it.

    The truth is, the voters got a real choice for once, and they voted hoping the "good Trump" would show up in January and not the "clown Trump". We have gotten some of both so far and that's the way it will probably go from here on. If Trump's only lasting achievement is having blown open the door on discussing immigration, globalism and SJW bullshit, it will have been worth it.

    OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their "Trump directed Flynn" story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?

    “OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their “Trump directed Flynn” story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?”

    No.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is a standard procedure. Their other favorite thing is to quickly bury a well-debunked line as a subordinate clause. NPR has factlessly established "Russian hacking of the 2016 Presidential election" beyond any doubt in the minds of their regular listeners, merely by constantly repeating those seven words like one of Aldous Huxley's sleeping education tapes, in little asides while talking about theater, actors, comedy and books.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. And a year and a month later, we’ve got ten new judges, a shiny new corporate tax cut, a bunch fewer regulations… And not a mile of wall built or funded, not a sanctuary city brought to heel, tens of thousands of “refugees” still coming in every year, and negotiations about how to grant legal permanent residency to nearly a million illegals. Yay.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I, too, called BS on this chum toss. My comments, now appearing way upthread, were whimmed for hours while all the 4-D pawns were signing each other's 2016 yearbooks. If and when this one's allowed through, they will all be onto something else.
    , @newrouter
    "And not a mile of wall built or funded, "

    "More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to U.S. - New Report
    by Griselda Nevarez / Nov.19.2015 / 12:45 AM ET"

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/more-mexicans-leaving-coming-u-s-new-report-n466226
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Without Euro whites there we be no one to the pay bills of blacks & browns.
    Blacks & browns aren’t capable by themselves.

    That’s why they all want to come to Euro white countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. I read that as “The Four Tweets that Won Trump the White House.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    Could it be that we are heading into another decisive period that might shape the midterms?
    Tax decision, Alabama election, Tillerson chatter...

    Since Trump, all ‘periods are decisive’, he changed everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Detective Club
    The first debate was the only debate which Hillary won outright. The Lefty media was expecting Trump to lose the second debate Big Time : instead Trump was the clear winner. The third debate was an anemic affair, with neither candidate putting in a creditable performance.

    Overall Black turnout was down 5.5% from 2012, thereby letting Trump win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a mere 80,000 votes in those three states combined and thus winning in the electoral college. Blacks, particularly Black males, hated Hillary's guts with a passion beyond measure. Hillary was too much the White school teacher type or White lady boss type for them, so they stayed home.

    Hillary romped with the Third-World vote. She crushed Trump in California 60%-31%. Thanks to the Somali vote in Minnesota, she beat Trump there by only 1 1/2%. Thanks to the bent same-day "Motor-Voter" turnout in New Hampshire, Hillary beat Trump in NH by less than 2.500 votes.

    On Nov. 8, 2016, was Trump just another lucky bastard in the game of politics or is it true when they say : FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD?

    You call this “luck”?

    plus:
    2010 Dems lost the House
    2012 the Dems lost the Senate
    2016 Dems lost the White House

    The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama’s presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    The Big Brains here keep calling it "luck" cause they cant get over how wrong they were and continue to be.
    , @ScarletNumber
    You understand that all counties don't have the same population, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Abe

    Actually the lesson I took from the election is that the candidate who outspends and gets more favorable media coverage than his or her opponent -though you need both- will always get more votes, even if that candidate is screwed up on all the other factors.
     
    Another reminder that if you give back the # of votes by which the Libertarian Party candidate overperformed in 2016 (~2 million) on the assumption that most of these represent #NeverTrump right-leaning normies, and then the 700K that went to explicitly #NeverTrump spoiler candidate Edgar McMullin, Trump wins the popular vote too.

    excellent point…The GOP never-Trump movement was a significant reason Trump lost the popular vote. While many never-Trump Republicans did vote for Hillary (such as George Bush) , millions voted for Gary Johnson and McMullin. If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HunInTheSun
    Oh yes he would have. Buckley always stayed onside with "respectable" media consensus after he defied it over segregation in the sixties...he never made that mistake again.
    , @MB
    If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    Derbyshire, and Sobran if he were alive, would beg to disagree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Kylie
    "OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their “Trump directed Flynn” story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?"

    No.

    This is a standard procedure. Their other favorite thing is to quickly bury a well-debunked line as a subordinate clause. NPR has factlessly established “Russian hacking of the 2016 Presidential election” beyond any doubt in the minds of their regular listeners, merely by constantly repeating those seven words like one of Aldous Huxley’s sleeping education tapes, in little asides while talking about theater, actors, comedy and books.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @AnotherDad
    Those are the weeks that defined the contest--naionalist versus elite establishment snob--that gave Trump a solid path to victory.

    Hillary's "basket of deplorables" exposing to the millions who pay no attention, the reality that she's an establishment apparatchik with thinly disguised contempt for the American people, while reinforcing the female part of her tedious church lady personality with the precious "basket". At that point a smarter, more ideological and rhetorically asute Trump would have had a clear path to victory.

    But those four weeks didn't actually win the thing, because of Trump's weaknesses. His lazy and incompetent first debate performance--never bringing up his core issue of immigration in the context of all the economic and jobs questions, never bothering to even try to nail Hillary to her Goldman Sachs patrons, letting Hillary pretend she's middle class by citing her father and doing nothing--cost Trump a clear victory. Trump was just super fortunate that he was running against Hillary, a woman who is incredibly unappealling on pretty much every level--personality, policy, corruption, incompetence.

    This thing was so close any of mistakes or successes was potentially decisive. But i would give the nod to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment as the critical moment. Ironically it was Hillary's emission that sired a Trump victory.

    Regarding first debate, it was a rope-a-dope

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @27 year old
    Hopefully this week's passage of the tax cuts for oligarchs and the Jerusalem embassy thing (whatever that is) will be the start of sealing Trump's re-election in 2020, as some factions of the hostile ruling class back off or maybe even come around to Trump, plus the Kate Steinle verdict and open gloating from usual suspects reminds Whites what's at stake...

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory. If he stays in office for 8 years, AND he drags the GOP kicking and screaming in the direction of sanity, then it would be a yuge victory.

    My spitball theory is if Trump is in office for 8 years, I see that as potentially running out the clock on the Democrats' coalition.

    I'm not an expert but if they don't have an incumbent Pres or VP after 2020, I can't really think of anyone they could seriously run in 2024. After 7 more years of anti-White anti-Trump hysteria, the dems White voter support will likely have eroded to all but a tiny core in the blue archipelago. It's possible for them to win without any normie Whites, but how likely is that really? That's just one way could crack up, could easily succumb to infighting between blacks and hispanics or the homo/pedo gang vs everyone else, with no unifying leader at national level. And even if the coalition holds together, as The Sex Thing (tm) rolls on continuing to eject White and jewish males from the dem apparatus, who is going to be left that can competently wield the thing? Like the dems could go full race baiting and max nonWhite turnout and win that way, but to do that somebody still needs to literally operate the campaign to make that happen and it ain't gonna be frizzy haired mulattas.

    This is contingent on no new wars and no financial catastrophe ("assume a can opener"). But I could see Bannon's prediction of governing for the next 50 years coming true pretty easily IF we can keep Trump around for a second term.

    I was thinking that even if Trump fails to deliver the goods on policy, if he can win re-election, just by occupying the White House for 8 years he will have given us something of a victory.

    If Trump fails to deliver the goods on immigration, we would’ve been in the same place or better with “generic Republican,” ¡Jeb! or “little Marco.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. just Ctrl-F “videla” to access my comments.

    steve and commenters are homosexuals.

    omerta.on his

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. @Thomas
    And a year and a month later, we’ve got ten new judges, a shiny new corporate tax cut, a bunch fewer regulations... And not a mile of wall built or funded, not a sanctuary city brought to heel, tens of thousands of “refugees” still coming in every year, and negotiations about how to grant legal permanent residency to nearly a million illegals. Yay.

    I, too, called BS on this chum toss. My comments, now appearing way upthread, were whimmed for hours while all the 4-D pawns were signing each other’s 2016 yearbooks. If and when this one’s allowed through, they will all be onto something else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Thomas
    And a year and a month later, we’ve got ten new judges, a shiny new corporate tax cut, a bunch fewer regulations... And not a mile of wall built or funded, not a sanctuary city brought to heel, tens of thousands of “refugees” still coming in every year, and negotiations about how to grant legal permanent residency to nearly a million illegals. Yay.

    “And not a mile of wall built or funded, ”

    “More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to U.S. – New Report
    by Griselda Nevarez / Nov.19.2015 / 12:45 AM ET”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/more-mexicans-leaving-coming-u-s-new-report-n466226

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Finally watched WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP. I avoided this like a plague all these years, and for good reason it turns out.

    The seeds of everything that went crazy with Liberalism can be glimpsed here. It took time for the cancer to spread, but once New England Puritanism lost God, it had to find other causes and needs in an idyllic world of privilege. The nuthouse in the movie is like so many elite colleges in the East Coast.
    Victimhood as fetish for demented brats. These are people who do everything to escape from reality but pretend to save the world.
    The movie’s view of feminism is ambiguous, but soulless eccentricity, esp of the mother, is supposed to be admirable, even redemptive.

    We are living in the Age of Garp and Gump.

    Liberals turned into Garps, freakdom as new normal, and Conservatives turned into Gumps, dumb dogs easily manipulated by the Power.

    Praise be Kek.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/03/john-irving-interview-avenue-of-mysteries-politics-wrestling-great-american-novel

    Women raising sons alone in a fatherless world as an ideal. World is getting sick.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Samurai_(novel)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @AndrewR
    What I have found astounding from my shitlib acquaintances is how many don't see anything wrong with her "deplorables" line. I mean, granted, she wasn't wrong per se. Approximately half of Trump supporters were irredeemable
    deplorables [in before triggered Trumptards angrily @ing me]. But she was (unsurprisingly) dishonest in omitting the inconvenient fact that at least half of her supporters were equally deplorable. And, honesty aside, it is a shockingly stupid thing for a candidate running for office under quasi-universal suffrage to publicly disparage a large portion of the electorate. Trump never said anything nearly as stupid. Muslims and Mexican immigrants are a much smaller portion of the electorate.

    Trump never said anything nearly as stupid.

    But President Romney did. (the 47%)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Wasn't he being secretly filmed? Hillary definitely knew she was being filmed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Anonymous
    I used to be opposed to a national ID card on libertarian, anti-gov grounds, but now I see it as the best way to stymie illegal voting during federal elections.

    Surely Trump is looking ahead to 2020 and doing what it takes to secure his next victory. Somewhere in his calculus is the huge number of illegal voters who pulled the D lever. Think about the felons, the illegal aliens, etc. -- if he could stop them from voting in FEDERAL elections, which he can with a national ID card, his victory would be assured.

    To win 2020, Trump can ...
    1) increase turn-out of Trumpeters
    2) win over some more of the never-Trumpers in the R party
    3) depress the legitimate D vote
    4) get rid of illegal voters, almost all of whom are D.

    No brainer, right?

    You’ll need a compulsory chip implant in the forehead to make it work, so that none, great or small, can buy, sell, work or eat without it.

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!
     
    Some people of course are under the delusion that "following our principles" means inviting the world even to the point of being overrun.

    New Africa should be an amazing place. Enjoy.

    (Everytime I see the words "Principled Conservatism" or some variation thereof I imagine some gay twerp dancing in the sunny flower fields uttering the words in a tone about two octaves above the normal male register...)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Travis
    excellent point...The GOP never-Trump movement was a significant reason Trump lost the popular vote. While many never-Trump Republicans did vote for Hillary (such as George Bush) , millions voted for Gary Johnson and McMullin. If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    Oh yes he would have. Buckley always stayed onside with “respectable” media consensus after he defied it over segregation in the sixties…he never made that mistake again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Pax Dickinson, is that you?

    https://twitter.com/Jokeocrazy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Wally
    You call this "luck"?

    https://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png

    plus:
    2010 Dems lost the House
    2012 the Dems lost the Senate
    2016 Dems lost the White House

    The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama’s presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

    The Big Brains here keep calling it “luck” cause they cant get over how wrong they were and continue to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. MB says: • Website
    @TomSchmidt
    That line was drop-the-mike, walk-off-the-stage perfect.

    And that’s as far as it went because theatrics trump reality in the media auditions masquerading as debates.
    Grump talked tough, but he’s caving on a lot of stuff.
    Hope he doesn’t try to prove he’s not an empty suit by nuking Rocketman.
    Still, the deplorables are restless and are tired of putting up with status quo.
    Which is why Moore beat the Repug Trump backed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    As I highlighted in the Saker's article, the Federal Government has lost the consent of the governed. The Deplorables were hopelessly disconnected and energized by Trump; Trump's victory has likewise convinced the Left that he is illegitimate. Fundamentally, the deplorables (which Hillary estimated at 25%, which might be a good number) and the Resist crowd (25%?) view government by the other side as something they do not consent to.

    With the Republican congress passing an oligarchic tax cut, completely ignoring the needs of the Deplorables, either the Left takes power or the Deplorables take the Republican party, or both. It really is stunning how the bought-and-paid-for Republican Congress thinks it can use Trump to push an obsolete agenda, while throwing away years of electoral dominance obtainable by building Trumpism with a non-clown face.

    At least the Republicans in Congress had the good sense to stick it to the Managerial class. How they can campaign on "we didn't help you, but we stuck it to the bi-coastal elite" is a good question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Hillary was the nominee for a reason. She was and is very, very good at politics. Just not with ordinary, normal people. Rather, with insiders. She has built a massive, and truly all-encompassing, political machine. Its tentacles reach into every branch of government, including the judicial, regulatory, executive, and legislative branches, as well as media, infotainment/Hollywood, the tech world, non-White groups, NGOs, Wall Street, the military, and the university system. The only place the Clintons do not control or at least command are the extractive industries and ordinary people.

    In Democratic Politics, Hillary is not finished because she still controls the cash. Note that Donna Brazile said that the Democratic Party was flat dead broke, Obama had no money for it and had used up all the cash on hand to prop up his image like a typical short-sighted African Big Man. It was Hillary who rigged the Party against the Bernie Bros because SHE HAD THE MONEY. And no one else did.

    And how did HILLARY GET THE MONEY? Simple, by a massive organized patronage/protection system that exists to extract money from: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the Media, Defense Contractors, Charitable Foundations, and Hollywood. In return for favors and governmental protection from competition or reform or critics as well as race-baiting NGOs she gathered enormous amounts of cash which she used to fund various operatives at all sorts of levels at not just the Clinton Foundation but all across the Democratic Party, the media, Hollywood, etc. Hillary’s reach goes from George Stephanopolous to Harvey Weinstein to Carlos Danger himself, Anthony Weiner, to Chuck Schemer and Nancy Palsy, to General Silveria and General Casey and General Electric, Comcast/NBC, Bob Iger at Disney, and Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook.

    Hillary was probably the most well funded candidate since Pompey, and still controls a vast patronage/protection organization — the campaign against various people on sexual harassment charges is mostly a logistics “burn the earth” campaign by Kamala Harris against Hillary’s money machine. No more Harvey Weinstein to bundle contributions, or Garrison Keillor to folksy-endorse her, or Charlie Rose to praise her. [Kamala Harris has to be the odds on favorite to be the next President, and she's a typical White hating Mulatto who got her start as Willie Brown's professional girlfriend. If anything she hates White men more than Hillary and that's saying something.]

    Hillary was just very bad with ordinary people because the contempt and hatred or ordinary people and their way of life that made her successful as the head of the Clinton Protection Racket simply shone through too much — but no one should be under any illusions that she is not still dangerous because of what amounts to a private Army that she controls or has influence and pull with: including Robert Mueller, Comey, the #2 at the FBI Patrick McCabe, Terry McAuliffe, Lyin Brian Williams at NBC, Lorne Michaels at SNL, Stephen Colbert, much of the CIA, and half the Defense Contractors.

    I could well envision Cuck Ryan, Turtle McYertle, Nancy Palsy and Chuck Schemer arranging impeachment and conviction for Trump and Pence on the grounds that they conducted diplomacy with Russia (bad! mkay BAD!) and installing Hillary! “as the Rightful President.” Since laws mean nothing and power is all. The depth and breadth of the Clinton reach is astonishing. But for all that she has no understanding of normal White men, or even White women who work not act as “respectable prostitutes” (actresses) and would be as much a disaster as Mutti Merkel has been for her country (inviting in Rapefugees for the tingles).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve long suspected that the best succinct summary of the election is:

    Hillary: …the “Alt-Right”.
    Heckler: Pepe!

    That’s it. And I’m actually fairly serious. And yet to explain the concrete facts that make it so is a complex task. I hope that civilization will survive so that future historians can analyze it in more detail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The heckler sounded like he was having a lot more fun than Hillary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Harry Baldwin
    It was always bizarre to me that Hillary claimed that she was running on issues and that Trump was not. The opposite was true. Trump talked about concrete issues, while Hillary screeched flapdoodle like, "I have a five-point plan to jump-start the economy!"

    Hillary dedicated her campaign to destroying Trump, while not offering much as an alternative. The Clintons have been known to accuse opponents of pursuing "the politics of personal destruction," when in fact that's their specialty. (A friend of mine says that to understand politicians, you have to understand that whatever they say, they mean the opposite. Simplistic, to be sure, but I'm surprised how often it works, i.e., George W. Bush with his "no nation building" and "humble foreign policy.")

    Hillary was disadvantaged by running after eight years of Obama. The electorate tends to want a change. Presidents who successfully ran on "more of what you've had for the last eight years" are the exceptions.

    When competing for the presidency, a woman candidate is going to have to learn to modulate her voice. Hillary's screechiness at times made me wince. Elizabeth Warren is even worse and I don't think she has a chance at the presidency (plus too old, of course). Those screechy moments really stick in your mind.

    Palin was another one that could have definitely used some voice lessons.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. And I’ll add that Trump, for all his many faults: distraction, lack of focus, letting Jared and Ivanka anywhere near policy, explosive temper, had one giant advantage over !Jeb! and Little Marco and Hillary!

    He learned. Trump in 2011 when he made abortive moves about running went nowhere with the standard Republican lines about opportunity, tax cuts, and the like. He learned from that, and Mitt Romney’s Mr. Nice Guy nerd stuff that made him dead meat for a smooth Black President Operator like Obama. African Big Men beat White Nerds every day in political contests.

    Trump by trial and error understood that ordinary people had it with mass third world immigration and outsourcing and globalization. No matter the returns to the giant machines that Hillary and Merkel had constructed. Trump did not really understand it, or why, just that it worked, which made him the man with one eye in the Kingdom of the Blind. Hillary as the leader of the vast patronage machine could not and would not turn on her sources of money by promising things that say, the leaders of P&G or Goldman Sachs disliked: limits to immigration (Mexicans buy more Pampers and toothpaste here than in Mexico, so corporate consumerism for Mass Third World Immigration to the US is a given), limits to profiteering in China via outsourcing, etc.

    You could see during the campaign Trump working out what stuff made people respond, like a Pro Wrestler working a crowd in Peoria and Dallas, and what turned them off. He had no giant patronage machine to take care of, and whose money sources he needed to protect. He had no long history of dutifully repeating that illegal immigrants were “an act of love” or the story of the bravery of love, and could count all the way up to ten without using any of his fingers. That alone made him far smarter and more dangerous than El Jebe! and Little Marco.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. @Travis
    excellent point...The GOP never-Trump movement was a significant reason Trump lost the popular vote. While many never-Trump Republicans did vote for Hillary (such as George Bush) , millions voted for Gary Johnson and McMullin. If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    Derbyshire, and Sobran if he were alive, would beg to disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EriK
    Sobran reconciled with WFB before he passed, so I'm not sure about that. Derb can speak for himself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Anonymous
    I've long suspected that the best succinct summary of the election is:

    Hillary: ...the "Alt-Right".
    Heckler: Pepe!

    That's it. And I'm actually fairly serious. And yet to explain the concrete facts that make it so is a complex task. I hope that civilization will survive so that future historians can analyze it in more detail.

    The heckler sounded like he was having a lot more fun than Hillary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @anonymous
    Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016, as published at The Unz Review:

    "In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

    A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."

    This point of view is way too cynical for the cynics of Sailer’s caliber.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Jason Roberts
    Well said. Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states (Colorado & Virginia are my predictions for 2024). I think Trump won every state where there was a BLM riot (except MN).

    Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states

    This always can be arranged. Are you certain that Dallas and New Orleans shootings were not synthetic?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    This always can be arranged. Are you certain that Dallas and New Orleans shootings were not synthetic?
     
    Do you believe that any mass shootings anywhere are NOT synthetic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Trump's victory was a 2 sided coin - he won it AND Hillary lost it. Hillary's self-destruction was key. Trump is an exceptionally lucky man and the Clinton domination of the Democrat Party and Hillary's exceptional weakness on the campaign trail was a real stroke of luck for Trump.

    Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate? Who would that have been? Would Biden have been better? Booker?

    Trump is an exceptionally lucky man….Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate?

    Keep in mind Trump survived that Access Hollywood tape, probably the biggest October surprise and scandal of any presidential race.

    How would Trump have done against Hillary or any other democrat if that tape had never been released?

    Additionally, has any presidential candidate ever received less support from his party? He not only received minimal support, but a significant number of the leaders were neverTrumpers sabotaging his chances by running Egghead and encouraging people to vote for Hillary.

    Finally, has any presidential candidate ever received more negative, and downright hostile coverage by the MSM?

    It’s possible a more likable democrat would have won, ASSUMING all of the above conditions were in place. However, if none of the above had happened to Trump, he would have wiped the floor with any democrat. It was only close because of that cumulative headwind he faced. One that no other candidate, at least my lifetime, has ever faced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Remember when Trump was the only candidate to face down the sneering MSM? And now they are just Fake News. Lucky guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Off-topic sort of:

    Trump does it again or just reaches for the low hanging fruit, by nixing a non-binding agreement?

    https://www.rt.com/usa/411768-us-withdraws-global-migration-deal/

    The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has announced Washington’s withdrawal from the process to create a global compact aimed at facilitating international migration, as it goes against the American idea of sovereignty.
    In a statement Saturday, Haley said that then-President Obama’s decision to commit the US to the process by signing the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016 had come at the expense of America’s interest.

    “The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee polices and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles,” she said in a written statement tweeted by the US mission to the UN.

    “The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with the US sovereignty,” the statement concluded.
    ….
    According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN migration agency, the signatories of the document, that was to pave the way for the adoption of the global compact for migration in 2018, have pledged to protect the rights and freedoms of migrants, “regardless of their migratory status,” facilitate their integration, fight racial and other forms of discrimination.

    Outlining the main objectives of the future compact, the IOM cited the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, that calls on countries to work together to “facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Nice to have some good news on that front! Thanks! This is the kind of thing that may help the Eastern Europeans summon the political will to resist EU population replacement measures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Romanian
    Off-topic sort of:

    Trump does it again or just reaches for the low hanging fruit, by nixing a non-binding agreement?

    https://www.rt.com/usa/411768-us-withdraws-global-migration-deal/

    The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has announced Washington’s withdrawal from the process to create a global compact aimed at facilitating international migration, as it goes against the American idea of sovereignty.
    In a statement Saturday, Haley said that then-President Obama’s decision to commit the US to the process by signing the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016 had come at the expense of America’s interest.

    “The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee polices and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles,” she said in a written statement tweeted by the US mission to the UN.

    “The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with the US sovereignty,” the statement concluded.
    ....
    According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN migration agency, the signatories of the document, that was to pave the way for the adoption of the global compact for migration in 2018, have pledged to protect the rights and freedoms of migrants, “regardless of their migratory status,” facilitate their integration, fight racial and other forms of discrimination.

    Outlining the main objectives of the future compact, the IOM cited the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, that calls on countries to work together to “facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.”
     

    Nice to have some good news on that front! Thanks! This is the kind of thing that may help the Eastern Europeans summon the political will to resist EU population replacement measures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    Could it be that we are heading into another decisive period that might shape the midterms?
    Tax decision, Alabama election, Tillerson chatter...

    WAR FOR NO GOOD REASON OR PEACE!

    I sure hope to hell this Jerusalem clownshow isn’t going to be held.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @athEIst
    Trump never said anything nearly as stupid.

    But President Romney did. (the 47%)

    Wasn’t he being secretly filmed? Hillary definitely knew she was being filmed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Fran Macadam
    You'll need a compulsory chip implant in the forehead to make it work, so that none, great or small, can buy, sell, work or eat without it.

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!

    Some people of course are under the delusion that “following our principles” means inviting the world even to the point of being overrun.

    New Africa should be an amazing place. Enjoy.

    (Everytime I see the words “Principled Conservatism” or some variation thereof I imagine some gay twerp dancing in the sunny flower fields uttering the words in a tone about two octaves above the normal male register…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    For instance, gay marriage is a well-known principled conservative stance. Was that the point when I finally lost hope for conventional conservatives? Possibly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @guest
    Trump personally didn't tie Hillary to the cloud people, but her comments did. Anyway, you think people actually paid attention to stories about her father? No one thinks of her as middle-class. She's the millionaire wife of a former president who was in Washington for a generation. That's her profile.

    Of all things to criticize Trump about, not calling out her non-middle-classedness is a bizarre one.

    Of all things to criticize Trump about, not calling out her non-middle-classedness is a bizarre one.

    I’m recalling specific incidents in the debate that I remember as missed opportunities.

    But the larger point that Republicans keep letting Democrats–the parasite party, the “coalition of the fringes” party, the dumbbell party of plutocrats and peons–pretend that they care about “working families” and “the middle class” is a serious glaring and ridiculous failure.

    If you’re going to beat the parasite party you have to actually call them out as the parasite party.

    Trump utterly failed to do that with Hillary in the first debate even though she set herself up for it multiple times during the debate. It was certainly a gross missed opportunity and was saved from being a debacle (and costing Trump the election) only because Hillary is just a tedious PCLFH (Protestant Church Lady From Hell).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @guest
    "Democrat" is just as good a name for it as "Democratic," if for no other reason than it bothers Democrats to hear it the former way.

    No, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. You are revealing your own ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Hey, Grammar Nazi, the phrase "Democrat Party" is in common usage. Which doesn't make it grammatically correct, but who cares? I know it's not an adjective. It has its own Wikipedia entry as a political epithet, which is how I use it. If you don't know about that, who's the ignorant one?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @anonguy
    Funny thing is how Hillary and Bill have become so much more healthy. Back during those weeks to which Steve alludes, Hillary was supposedly on daily life support, etc, and Bill had HIV or Parkinsons. None were expected to live very long into 2017.

    Lots and lots of people believed this with every fiber of their being back then.

    For better or worse, Hillary has demonstrated she's still got a lot of fight in her, so all that belief in her frail condition was just a giant mass psychosis.

    So everyone was crazy, no? Is that bad? Most of the people who believed this crazy thing did elect Trump, it helped them, so was crazy good for them? It did achieve its functional purpose.

    Perhaps it’s easier when you can choose to rest up at will and nobody asks about your visits to the hospital.

    I wonder if Hillary would have survived a presidency. It turned Obama into a grey troll. Bill looked ready to shrivel up and blow away when his victims turned up at the debate. (Talk about turning the tables!)

    Trump still seems hale and hearty, even though he campaigned harder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Wally
    You call this "luck"?

    https://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png

    plus:
    2010 Dems lost the House
    2012 the Dems lost the Senate
    2016 Dems lost the White House

    The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama’s presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

    You understand that all counties don’t have the same population, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @reiner Tor
    I really liked Hillary’s 911 collapse video with the Secret Service agents and Hillary’s large black armored van. It looked like in a movie. I occasionally still watch it.

    It also gave us racist deplorables hope after the late summer looked a bit hopeless.

    Or that video of Hillary insanely nodding away with female reporters drawing back in fear. Oops, the bot broke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AndrewR
    What I have found astounding from my shitlib acquaintances is how many don't see anything wrong with her "deplorables" line. I mean, granted, she wasn't wrong per se. Approximately half of Trump supporters were irredeemable
    deplorables [in before triggered Trumptards angrily @ing me]. But she was (unsurprisingly) dishonest in omitting the inconvenient fact that at least half of her supporters were equally deplorable. And, honesty aside, it is a shockingly stupid thing for a candidate running for office under quasi-universal suffrage to publicly disparage a large portion of the electorate. Trump never said anything nearly as stupid. Muslims and Mexican immigrants are a much smaller portion of the electorate.

    You never ever criticize the electorate. The ‘deplorables’ incident is probably the best demonstration of her general political incompetence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @anonymous

    Trump is an exceptionally lucky man....Would Trump have won against a better Democrat candidate?
     
    Keep in mind Trump survived that Access Hollywood tape, probably the biggest October surprise and scandal of any presidential race.

    How would Trump have done against Hillary or any other democrat if that tape had never been released?

    Additionally, has any presidential candidate ever received less support from his party? He not only received minimal support, but a significant number of the leaders were neverTrumpers sabotaging his chances by running Egghead and encouraging people to vote for Hillary.

    Finally, has any presidential candidate ever received more negative, and downright hostile coverage by the MSM?

    It's possible a more likable democrat would have won, ASSUMING all of the above conditions were in place. However, if none of the above had happened to Trump, he would have wiped the floor with any democrat. It was only close because of that cumulative headwind he faced. One that no other candidate, at least my lifetime, has ever faced.

    Remember when Trump was the only candidate to face down the sneering MSM? And now they are just Fake News. Lucky guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Nico

    So what if it takes a totalitarian state from which we beg permission, to save American liberty. We had to destroy it, to save it!
     
    Some people of course are under the delusion that "following our principles" means inviting the world even to the point of being overrun.

    New Africa should be an amazing place. Enjoy.

    (Everytime I see the words "Principled Conservatism" or some variation thereof I imagine some gay twerp dancing in the sunny flower fields uttering the words in a tone about two octaves above the normal male register...)

    For instance, gay marriage is a well-known principled conservative stance. Was that the point when I finally lost hope for conventional conservatives? Possibly.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. “You know, maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, ‘Look, this is not who we are.’ We’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias,”–HRC, Sept 21, 2016

    It was a just an all-around bad year for Hillary to talk to white people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  164. @J.Ross
    Remember Seth "The Example" Rich, all but identified by Julian Assange as the "Russian hacker."
    Remember the Berniebot who wrote an op-ed describing how he actually read WikiLeaks, saw that the emails proved that California was thrown, and voted for Trump. Remember the "Flight 93 Election," the Foundation/Mule metaphor, and Scott Adams' assistance.
    Remember the aggressive ethnic invasion of white, rural, probably apolitical communities, who woke up one morning to discover that they now had something called a murder rate because Julian Castro was experimenting on them.
    Remember the image of a man punched in the face, who is then immediately assured that he was not punched in the face.
    Remember Obama personally encouraging Ferguson rioters.
    Remember the retired judge who came to Ferguson to help process arrestees, and whose proppsal was that black people be allowed to break the law.
    Remember Ferguson rioters complaining that Soros was paying black protesters less money than white ones.
    Remember Dallas police, exhausted and overstretched by fake protesters disrupting traffic over a fake cause, getting picked off from an elevated position by a man who believed the non-stop media drumbeat about blacks being hunted for sport, at a time of statiscally low police killings. Remember the police executions elsewhere.
    Remember the "joke" photos of helpless, sexualized children, the "art" depicting helpless, unclothed, and miserable childen, the "movie" proposal that just happened to describe the situation of Antonin Scalia's death, and the video of the party where people talk about enjoying sex with children, and the media declaring that none of that ever existed. Or at least, that you weren't allowed to see it.
    Remember the Clinton apparatus diverting its resources and attention to rescue a woman who was attempting to move Haitian children to the US by falsely claiming they were orphans.
    Remember the entire Democratic congressional delegation relying on Pakistani intelligence agents for their IT services, and Little Debbie threatening a police officer to protect them.
    Remember when /pol/ was not all botspam and sourceless one-line one-posts and obvious defamation and data-mining.
    And remember that if you're going to San Francisco, firearms stolen from federal agents sometimes magically discharge by themselves, and cause a negligent homicide, but that's not a crime.

    Remember the “joke” photos of helpless, sexualized children, the “art” depicting helpless, unclothed, and miserable children…

    Yes, this is worth mentioning too: the Podesta brothers weird and dark art collections and “spirit cooking”. You don’t have to be an Evangelical Christian to find all that stuff deeply troubling and to take as further evidence that the Swamp urgently needed draining.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @James Kabala
    Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later, the negative Hillary events on Steve's list (basket of deplorables, the 9/11 collapse) seem much better remembered than the positive Trump events. I am not sure if I have thought of Trump's visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.

    “I am not sure if I have thought of Trump’s visit to Mexico since about the day after it happened.”

    I have thought often about Trump’s visit to Louisiana flood victims many times since it happened. That late August campaign move brought things into stark clarity for many voters. Hillary never made it down there, and Barky showed up a day late and a dollar short. People noticed. Even the MSM was stunned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Pericles
    Though Anthony Weiner will always be remembered, the alt-right speech was probably my favorite moment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLDX6RHTY4

    I’ve thought for a while that the Trump movement and GamerGate where philosophically similar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @ScarletNumber
    No, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. You are revealing your own ignorance.

    Hey, Grammar Nazi, the phrase “Democrat Party” is in common usage. Which doesn’t make it grammatically correct, but who cares? I know it’s not an adjective. It has its own Wikipedia entry as a political epithet, which is how I use it. If you don’t know about that, who’s the ignorant one?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    who’s the ignorant one?
     
    You're the one who uses cliched political epithets, so that would be you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Tiny Duck
    Trump won because white supremacy still has a stranglehold on the hearts of white pekoe. Leonard Pitts had written extensively on how whites are refusing to peacefully give no their privilege. This is why demographic change is imperitave.

    People of Color are figuring out ways to triumph against white supremacy
    https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/5-life-hacks-for-black-people-who-want-to-leverage-whit-1820853574/amp

    We will replace you

    Learn to spell, Brother.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Bryan
    It was a close run thing. I recall not being able to bear watching the election on TV that night, thinking that the end of your nation is a time to be drinking good wine with your wife instead of waiting for Meghan Kelley to gloat about how the End of All Things is really awesome.

    No media of any kind that night or the next morning. I found out while on the treadmill at the gym: CNN had all sadz on. I damn near fell off the machine.

    I’m an engineer at Boeing working second shift PST. I’m at my computer all night but adamantly refused to check any internet sites. I didn’t want to be demoralized by what I feared was a Hillary landslide victory. At the end of my shift, as I was filling in my work hours, I let myself peek at the election results to get the bad news. All the sites were predicting a Trump victory.

    I WAS STUNNED!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @MB
    If William Buckley was still alive the National Review he would not have allowed the NR to become an anti-Trump rag.

    Derbyshire, and Sobran if he were alive, would beg to disagree.

    Sobran reconciled with WFB before he passed, so I’m not sure about that. Derb can speak for himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @MB
    And that's as far as it went because theatrics trump reality in the media auditions masquerading as debates.
    Grump talked tough, but he's caving on a lot of stuff.
    Hope he doesn't try to prove he's not an empty suit by nuking Rocketman.
    Still, the deplorables are restless and are tired of putting up with status quo.
    Which is why Moore beat the Repug Trump backed.

    As I highlighted in the Saker’s article, the Federal Government has lost the consent of the governed. The Deplorables were hopelessly disconnected and energized by Trump; Trump’s victory has likewise convinced the Left that he is illegitimate. Fundamentally, the deplorables (which Hillary estimated at 25%, which might be a good number) and the Resist crowd (25%?) view government by the other side as something they do not consent to.

    With the Republican congress passing an oligarchic tax cut, completely ignoring the needs of the Deplorables, either the Left takes power or the Deplorables take the Republican party, or both. It really is stunning how the bought-and-paid-for Republican Congress thinks it can use Trump to push an obsolete agenda, while throwing away years of electoral dominance obtainable by building Trumpism with a non-clown face.

    At least the Republicans in Congress had the good sense to stick it to the Managerial class. How they can campaign on “we didn’t help you, but we stuck it to the bi-coastal elite” is a good question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Abe
    “Maybe this just reflects the fixations of the media on both left and right, but a year later” I can’t seem to remember those brilliant Russian anti-Hillary social media ads that everybody knows swayed my vote to Trump.

    I think the Russian ads were overwhelmigly not intended to support Trump, they were intended to stir shit up, get people mad at each other. They almost certainly expected Hillary to win (almost everyone did), and they were probably just hoping to give her the occasional domestic politics headache to make it harder for her to get stuff done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @anonguy
    Funny thing is how Hillary and Bill have become so much more healthy. Back during those weeks to which Steve alludes, Hillary was supposedly on daily life support, etc, and Bill had HIV or Parkinsons. None were expected to live very long into 2017.

    Lots and lots of people believed this with every fiber of their being back then.

    For better or worse, Hillary has demonstrated she's still got a lot of fight in her, so all that belief in her frail condition was just a giant mass psychosis.

    So everyone was crazy, no? Is that bad? Most of the people who believed this crazy thing did elect Trump, it helped them, so was crazy good for them? It did achieve its functional purpose.

    During the campaign, she was constantly on the road, shaking hands with sick people, giving speeches every night, under massive stress, and probably not getting enugh sleep. My guess is that that was pretty hard on her—I’d find it pretty wearing, and I’m twenty years younger than she is. Trump seemed to handle it better. My cynical side says he built up that endurance by all those years of doing the playboy/jet set lifestyle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    During the campaign, she was constantly on the road, shaking hands with sick people, giving speeches every night, under massive stress, and probably not getting enugh sleep.
     
    Actually, she wasn't. Not by the normal standards of a presidential contest. Her campaign deliberately limited her appearances, operating under the (perhaps correct) assumption, that the more she talked, the more she alienated people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @guest
    Hey, Grammar Nazi, the phrase "Democrat Party" is in common usage. Which doesn't make it grammatically correct, but who cares? I know it's not an adjective. It has its own Wikipedia entry as a political epithet, which is how I use it. If you don't know about that, who's the ignorant one?

    who’s the ignorant one?

    You’re the one who uses cliched political epithets, so that would be you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @NOTA
    During the campaign, she was constantly on the road, shaking hands with sick people, giving speeches every night, under massive stress, and probably not getting enugh sleep. My guess is that that was pretty hard on her—I’d find it pretty wearing, and I’m twenty years younger than she is. Trump seemed to handle it better. My cynical side says he built up that endurance by all those years of doing the playboy/jet set lifestyle.

    During the campaign, she was constantly on the road, shaking hands with sick people, giving speeches every night, under massive stress, and probably not getting enugh sleep.

    Actually, she wasn’t. Not by the normal standards of a presidential contest. Her campaign deliberately limited her appearances, operating under the (perhaps correct) assumption, that the more she talked, the more she alienated people.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @utu
    Trump also needs Black Lives Matter shootings in key swing states

    This always can be arranged. Are you certain that Dallas and New Orleans shootings were not synthetic?

    This always can be arranged. Are you certain that Dallas and New Orleans shootings were not synthetic?

    Do you believe that any mass shootings anywhere are NOT synthetic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Alfa158
    The Leonard Pitts links are part of TD's schtick. He is a right winger who spoofs the Left by posting over the top parodies of brain-dead anti-White screeds. Notice that he uses a self-abusive moniker Tiny D(i)uck. Nobody who was serious about their posts would do that. The Pitts links are part of the joke as he links to a (I'm guessing) real person who sounds even crazier and dumber than his fake TD persona.

    If so, then it doesn’t work. He is tedious and unfunny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Trump won because he was a celebrity running on an "America First" platform against a crummy, unpopular opponent. Even so, he almost blew it. He had room to make a lot of mistakes, which he most definitely did and does.

    This notion that Trump won because he's some kind of six-dimensional sui generis genius campaigner is fake news. It creates the impression that no sane person would have voted for him on the issues, that they were all hypnotized into doing it.

    The truth is, the voters got a real choice for once, and they voted hoping the "good Trump" would show up in January and not the "clown Trump". We have gotten some of both so far and that's the way it will probably go from here on. If Trump's only lasting achievement is having blown open the door on discussing immigration, globalism and SJW bullshit, it will have been worth it.

    OT, am I the only one wondering whether ABC released their "Trump directed Flynn" story knowing it was wrong, but doing it anyway because they knew many people would read the story but not the retraction?

    I see countless examples on Twitter of someone pointing out an initial, inflammatory, erroneous report that gets 50,000 Retweets, while the later retraction gets 500 Retweets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. gives bizarrely pointless speech in Reno denouncing obscure “Alt-Right;” heckler introduces America to “Pepe”

    It was beyond pointless. Hillary MC’d a coming out party for the Dissident Right, and galvanized many Trump supporters who had zero knowledge of the various flavors of Nationalist positions with the rallying cry of “deplorables.” Although her support was never as high as what the press had stated, instead of the inflicting the intended demoralization to Trump’s base via shaming, it energized those who were lukewarm on Trump because they thought she was referring to them. Arriving nearly two hours late increased the tension and anticipation, reinforcing the contention that the Lady in Waiting was either in ill health or so arrogant that she shows up whenever she chooses regardless of the schedule.

    Candidates who are solidly winning rarely throw such desperate Hail Marys like an Alt Right speech, so I was now even more assured Hillary was on the defense and more likely to lose the election than win. It backfired more fabulously than I suspected, and was one of the funnest days in national politics I’ve yet experienced.

    Unsurprisingly, Slate had a different take:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_s_alt_right_speech_was_shrewd_strategy.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. Objectively, it’s impossible to tell what the turning point was – the media were shouting throughout the campaign that Trump had no chance, or that he’d blown it with the latest phony outrage.

    I thought he had an excellent chance – but really, I didn’t know, as the coverage was so biased. To me, the telling factor was the large crowds he always he drew for his rallies.

    The moment of truth for HRC was the 911 memorial, which exposed her character flaws.

    She collapsed, but nothing was said, despite previous questions about her health.
    Her handlers took her to a private place rather than a hospital.
    She comes out a couple of hours later, denying any problem,”feeling great!”, greets a small child.
    Oh no! The collapse was filmed!
    It’s just flu!
    Oh no! She greeted a child!
    It’s “non-infectious” flu!
    And the media never pressed her as to why she hadn’t said anything before all this.

    If I had to pick one moment where she lost, that was it. And when she really had lost – she hid behind a man! She got Podesta to get up on stage and say, with remarkable bare-faced confidence, that she wasn’t about to concede. But she was phoning to concede as those words were being spoken. Lies, lies, lies…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. I knew Hillary would lose, almost the entire time. I saw just too much negativity from Millennials – this past election; the mobilized youth vote, like none before….because, as I have said often – Boomers gotta go to assisted living by now, according to the Millennials. It is not lost, at all, on normie Millennials that they are left with trillions of debt that Boomers dumped on them the last 20 years! And, lastly, Boomer women voted in droves against her…in secret, of course. And, they are really sick and tired of Democrats now!- haha.

    I enjoyed her ill-fated Machado act: epic fail for a woman whose own husband was a sordid bimbo-chaser! Lolita Express roller – he looks like crap, now. Love to see psychopath women like Hillary, fall on their own “sword.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. @vinny
    Pretty cool that from his victory we got huge tax cuts for the rich. Immigration restrictions? Sorry, maybe next term.

    I’m disappointed (but not shocked) at how little his supporters seem to be willing to demand much of anything from Trump.

    I do think that it’s the upcoming Congressional elections that will determine what the Trump Administration can accomplish. What it will actually try to accomplish is an open question…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @anonguy
    I'm impressed with Kamala Harris' cultural sympathies. The most anglophilic WASP could not do better. She'll be ok, she has the right amount of respect for whatever role the legacy of Western Civ is to have in the emerging civilizational mashup:


    https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/e71648a/2147483647/crop/4050x2700%2B0%2B0/resize/970x970/quality/85/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beam.usnews.com%2Fb3%2Fb1%2Fdfc089e145c2b44f2f8b4ea96bf3%2F171201reportkamala-02-editorial.kamala_02.jpg

    Kamala Harris is a child of the British Empire on both her mother’s and her father’s side and understands the importance of status symbols, pomp and circumstance.

    She is very adept at getting her way as a woman, including through a well-timed affair with San Francisco mayor and California power broker Willie Brown.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @J.Ross
    Is Tariq Nasheed an extreme deep cover alt-right troll? At link he says Zimbabewans should "suffer in peace" rather than tolerate the resumption of white agriculture.
    http:// i.4cdn dot org/pol/ 1512250571427.jpg
    Image develops out of Nasheed complaining about the post-Mugabe leadership in Zimbabwe making sensible overtures to white re-investment, including compensation payments to farmers whose land had been appropriated.
    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/151775605

    Tariq Nasheed is mentally retarded, if not actually insane. He’s a “sassy black woman” in the body of an adult black male.

    Sorry for the mobile link.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored