The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Trump in Arizona Open Thread
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

What’s up?

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    He’s using foreign conflicts to distract from and avoid fighting the domestic culture war, which is much more important. Trump’s been eaten by the swamp monster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marat
    Possibly. But Trump did make clear that it's not a nation-building exercise - he won't be shoving Michelle/Hillary's PC social agenda down their throats. They decide if they want democracy and "girl power" schools or not ... so that should theoretically knock a trillion or two off the final price tag.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/trump-in-arizona-open-thread/#comment-1979418
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. President Trump should stand with former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio by praising the great work Sheriff Arpaio did to protect the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions should make it clear that the bogus charges brought against Sheriff Joe Arpaio were politically motivated.

    President Trump should strongly suggest that sometime before October of this year he will negate the legal trouble of Sheriff Arpaio and begin investigations into the politically motivated attacks against Sheriff Arpaio.

    Read More
  3. Luke Lea says:

    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    The question before the house is : what happens after Trump's Army "smokes out" every last Afghan guerrilla fighter in Afghanistan and every last Afghan guerrilla fighter runs off to refuge in Pakistan, does Trump's Army invade Pakistan?

    Nixon's Army invaded Cambodia in 1970 and all Nixon got out of that invasion was the Khmer Rouge.
    , @Boethiuss

    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.
     
    I'd be inhaling by now. Whatever it is you're hoping for, chances are it's not coming.

    Not even having to do with what Trump wants necessarily but more about what he's capable of. In football terms, Trump is like the offensive coordinator on game day. He sits in a press box with binoculars and a big posterboard full of numbers and plays. He picks out the one he likes, and tells the quarterback to run it.

    Unfortunately for us, in our world the President is the quarterback. It's not enough to make a decision, even the right one. You have to execute, and Trump can't. That's why he's being buffeted around by people who don't necessarily like him. He doesn't have the connections or the knowledge to execute what he wants, so he's basically left making speeches.
  4. Achilles says:

    I suspect Trump is coming around to the conclusion that the RAISE immigration act, the Wall, Obamacare changes and any legislative trade deal changes will not pass the Senate as constituted, even if McConnell were to move from a 60 vote to a 51 vote mechanism.

    The one thing that might get done is lowering taxes, but even that would need some pork-trading with the Democrats to pass.

    Senators like Flake are essentially employees of globalism. Old school tactics of trading pork in their district in exchange for voting with the president don’t really work with the globalists. So spreading Trump’s desired infrastructure spending into key districts may not be very effective. Eric Cantor is representative of this class – if thrown out of office, they simply go work for another branch of globalism in a more lucrative position.

    And that may be true even if the Republicans pick up seats in the 2018 election, if the new senators are Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans rather than economic nationalists.

    What is needed is to ensure that Republican additions to the Senate are economic nationalists, and perhaps try to flip some of the globalist Republican seats like Flake (and McCain, when he leaves for health reasons) to pro-Trump seats.

    Hence the focus on rallying supporters in Arizona.

    On this reasoning, not much will get done in Congress before the 2018 elections, which will be a three way fight between Republican economic nationalists, Republican globalists and Democrat leftwing identity-group representatives.

    Read More
  5. MG says:

    Trump is determined to destroy his Presidency. Ably assisting in that goal are the cucks Javanka and Quran-loving McMaster. No wonder they wanted Bannon gone. What a let-down!

    Read More
  6. People are going in groups. Four go in, one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him. Come out, rearm.

    Gonna be interesting if Antifa tries to ‘Chicago’ this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wait, so is it a gunfag dork convention, or a Trump rally?
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him
     
    There are handy vests for that. Also, here's Willem Dafoe’s best work:

    https://youtu.be/KTMydV6n1Hk?t=27s
  7. Marat says:
    @Jason Liu
    He's using foreign conflicts to distract from and avoid fighting the domestic culture war, which is much more important. Trump's been eaten by the swamp monster.

    Possibly. But Trump did make clear that it’s not a nation-building exercise – he won’t be shoving Michelle/Hillary’s PC social agenda down their throats. They decide if they want democracy and “girl power” schools or not … so that should theoretically knock a trillion or two off the final price tag.

    Read More
  8. My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn’t)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he’s not getting the Wall, he didn’t get Healthcare, he didn’t swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn’t joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he’s tired of being demonized. Maybe he’s threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn’t getting him anything now that he’s president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he’s just another politician, and he doesn’t have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys’ right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don’t support that view. Fox News doesn’t support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don’t support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don’t matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    Read More
    • Agree: Seneca
    • Replies: @AM

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.
     
    He's not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it's just as moral support. It's part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.

    Also, I don't know how religious you are, but Trump is a deeply religious man, just not in a conventional sense of it. He also appears to value honesty. Between a prayer life and a dedication to doing what's right, I'm not sure he feels like he's alone. Maybe some bad moments, but regular prayer certainly helps.

    Plus when you can get a set of people starting a prayer chain like this on YouTube for you, it might not be so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdM7qgeORQM

    If you want to understand the Trumpain mindset better, I'd suggest reading The Power of Positive Thinking. Trump actually attended services by Norman Pearle (author) and he was in every way a mentor to Trump.

    , @Kevin C.

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible.
     
    Not much "maybe" about it. No other candidate could have done much better. Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn't answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president. There is no "draining the swamp", because the swamp holds all power. Voting changes nothing. Protests accomplish nothing. And "2nd amendment solutions" are dangerous nonsense that misunderstands modern warfare; to the extent mass uprisings of armed civilians were ever a viable thing, that time is over, and rebellion impossible.
    , @Desiderius

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he’s tired of being demonized. Maybe he’s threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn’t getting him anything now that he’s president.
     
    He can't fight everybody he needs to fight at once.

    There are three sides:

    1. America the country (us, his base, enough to elect him, not enough to govern)

    2. America the empire (Bush people, Mil/Ind complex, corporate over 50)

    3. Post-American globalism (Obama people, SV, corporate under 50)

    The most natural combination is 1. and 2. vs 3. and that's what we're seeing. It's simple triage. Can't afford to fight 2. until 3. is manageable.
    , @27 year old
    >What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring

    Trump (a capitalist oligarch type) never wanted to change things in a fundamental manner. For that matter, I'm not sure most of the commenters on this blog want to change things in a fundental manner.
    , @anonguy

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone.
     
    Trying to impose traditional constitutional principles on the contemporary American public is probably as futile as trying to do so on any other nation whose people don't intuitively feel these are virtues.

    Respect for free speech, all that, just isn't what most Americans value these days, hence its slow extinction. It really is just not who we are these days, whether right or left. Other concerns are our priorities.

    Not good or bad, just the times in which we live.
    , @Jean Ralphio
    The reason the GOP congress is not passing Trump's agenda is because they don't agree with it, not because he's an asshole. Steve's right when he says Trump's greatest accomplishment has been getting elites to say what they really have planned for America.
  9. @Luke Lea
    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

    The question before the house is : what happens after Trump’s Army “smokes out” every last Afghan guerrilla fighter in Afghanistan and every last Afghan guerrilla fighter runs off to refuge in Pakistan, does Trump’s Army invade Pakistan?

    Nixon’s Army invaded Cambodia in 1970 and all Nixon got out of that invasion was the Khmer Rouge.

    Read More
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    At this point, Trump’s theme song should be, “Cuckin’ USA”, with the refrain, “Everybody’s gone cuckin’, cuckin’ USA.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    Why is it that everyone continues to assume betrayal rather than inability? Given that it happens every single time a Republican is elected to national office, why always the assumption that each and every one of them, every time, chooses to "cuck out". Would not a better explanation be that our politicians fail to deliver to the Right-wing base not because they are all, individually, unwilling, but that they are unable? That however our government is supposed to work on paper, in real physical life our elected politicians are more figureheads that actual leaders, and all real power belongs to the permanent bureaucracy, Left-wing judges, and the opinion-manufacturing institutions of Academia and mass media. That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?
    , @anon

    At this point, Trump’s theme song should be, “Cuckin’ USA”, with the refrain, “Everybody’s gone cuckin’, cuckin’ USA.”
     
    This is comic platinum !!!!!!!!!!
    Funniest thing I have seen all week . Kudos brotha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. It appears as if Paunchy Gardiner is set to give another one of his cliche-ridden and content-lite barn burners, much to the delight of that half of his base which lacks the self-awareness to see that he no longer represents what they used to say they stood for. I don’t expect any revelations or substantive policy announcements. It’s all just a circus now.

    Read More
  12. Thomas says:

    The big questions tonight will be:

    1) Does he send any signals on the border?
    2) (Related) Does he indicate a pardon for Joe Arpaio?
    3) Does he endorse Kelli Ward (or otherwise signify support for a primary challenger to Jeff Flake)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    The big answers tonight will be:

    1) Trump will come to merit a "strange new respect" on the border issue.
    2) No pardon for Joe.
    3) No mention of Kelli Ward, but probably a shout out to John McCain for his service to his country.
    , @Prof. Woland
    Does he mention how sad he is that McCain has incurable brain cancer?
    , @LondonBob
    Trump has already endorsed Kelli Ward.

    Arpaio will have his conviction overturned anyway.

  13. MEH 0910 says:

    I don’t like this blue-balls hinting that he might pardon Sheriff Arpaio. Either he does it or nuts! I won’t put up with him testing me. As a voter, if I tell him to jump, and he doesn’t ask how high, I’ll push for impeaching the motherfucker!!!!!

    Read More
  14. AM says:
    @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    He’s not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it’s just as moral support. It’s part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.

    Also, I don’t know how religious you are, but Trump is a deeply religious man, just not in a conventional sense of it. He also appears to value honesty. Between a prayer life and a dedication to doing what’s right, I’m not sure he feels like he’s alone. Maybe some bad moments, but regular prayer certainly helps.

    Plus when you can get a set of people starting a prayer chain like this on YouTube for you, it might not be so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdM7qgeORQM

    If you want to understand the Trumpain mindset better, I’d suggest reading The Power of Positive Thinking. Trump actually attended services by Norman Pearle (author) and he was in every way a mentor to Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    He’s not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it’s just as moral support. It’s part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.
     
    Iron Law of Oligarchy: we, the masses, don't count. Only elites matter. The DC swamp may not be the world, but they put on a good show of ruling it, and their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.
  15. @Thomas
    The big questions tonight will be:

    1) Does he send any signals on the border?
    2) (Related) Does he indicate a pardon for Joe Arpaio?
    3) Does he endorse Kelli Ward (or otherwise signify support for a primary challenger to Jeff Flake)?

    The big answers tonight will be:

    1) Trump will come to merit a “strange new respect” on the border issue.
    2) No pardon for Joe.
    3) No mention of Kelli Ward, but probably a shout out to John McCain for his service to his country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas
    I'd call it "half a loaf." #1: check; #2 & #3: half credit.
  16. Hunsdon says:

    Meanwhile, NPR is clutching their pearls, stroking their chins, and wondering if the President’s appearance will incite violence.

    I’m not giving up on President Trump. I oppose going bigger in Afghanistan, but . . . I have confidence in Secretary Mattis. You’ll notice that about two weeks after he said, “Stop chasing ISIS here and there, pin them in place and kill the fuckers,” ISIS started have a really, really bad time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    I’m not giving up on President Trump.
     
    Trump hinted that he was going to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you hint something to me, and you don't follow through, I give up on you. In fact, I don't just give up on you, I turn against you!!!
  17. BenKenobi says:

    “The God-Emperor has dissolved the Congress. The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away.”

    Let’s just get it over with and see where the chips fall.

    Read More
    • Agree: 27 year old, Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    Yeah, a lot of people seem to be calling for this sort of thing. I don't think Trump (or any president) has the power to pull it off.
  18. Sean c says:

    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hunsdon
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.
     
    I have to disagree. I think that even if he had Congress on his side, even together they'd be no match for the power of the real government, the permanent government that's immune to elections.
    , @anonguy

    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.
     
    I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, it has been Reagan for the takedown of the Soviet Union however much he failed on the domestic front. Unbiased historians in the future will agree despite the current agenda-driven dogma that asserts that this was a natural, inevitable phenomenon like, say, immigration or outsourcing.

    As bad as things may seem now to some, the world is a far, far better place than it was during the Cold War. We humans really did have the means and apparent willingness to literally destroy civilization in a flash over our differences. By the grace of God we didn't.

    Current concerns are comparatively trivial and slower moving. Fretting over dusty Confederate memorials, by both sides, is a luxury provided by not having to worry about nuclear holocaust.
  19. @Thomas
    The big questions tonight will be:

    1) Does he send any signals on the border?
    2) (Related) Does he indicate a pardon for Joe Arpaio?
    3) Does he endorse Kelli Ward (or otherwise signify support for a primary challenger to Jeff Flake)?

    Does he mention how sad he is that McCain has incurable brain cancer?

    Read More
  20. Tulip says:

    Trump showed it could be done (running on an economic nationalist platform).

    Trump is showing it can not be done (governing on an economic nationalist platform).

    There needs to be some serious de-cucking in the 2018 primaries if we are to save the Republic.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.
     
    It doesn't matter; those "real American patriots" would be no more able to accomplish the agenda than "the cucks". When are you all going to wake up and realize that it doesn't matter who we vote into office, nothing will change. Elections. Do. Not. Matter.
    , @Boethiuss

    There needs to be some serious de-cucking in the 2018 primaries if we are to save the Republic.
     
    You realize Hillary Clinton is not on the ballot in 2018, or likely any subsequent year, right? Without her, Trump is just another pol under 40%
  21. MEH 0910 says:
    @Hunsdon
    Meanwhile, NPR is clutching their pearls, stroking their chins, and wondering if the President's appearance will incite violence.

    I'm not giving up on President Trump. I oppose going bigger in Afghanistan, but . . . I have confidence in Secretary Mattis. You'll notice that about two weeks after he said, "Stop chasing ISIS here and there, pin them in place and kill the fuckers," ISIS started have a really, really bad time.

    I’m not giving up on President Trump.

    Trump hinted that he was going to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you hint something to me, and you don’t follow through, I give up on you. In fact, I don’t just give up on you, I turn against you!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Must be awful lonely.
    , @It's All Ball Bearings
    "If you hint something to me, and you don’t follow through, I give up on you." so, you have never been in a relationship?
  22. People kvetching here about cucked out Senators while missing the irony about how cucked some of his “supporters” are here.

    Read More
  23. Kevin C. says:
    @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible.

    Not much “maybe” about it. No other candidate could have done much better. Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn’t answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president. There is no “draining the swamp”, because the swamp holds all power. Voting changes nothing. Protests accomplish nothing. And “2nd amendment solutions” are dangerous nonsense that misunderstands modern warfare; to the extent mass uprisings of armed civilians were ever a viable thing, that time is over, and rebellion impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn’t answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president.
     
    Yes, but it is divided within itself. The only way to defeat it is to leverage those divisions, not to take it head-on.
    , @Jack Hanson
    HELLO MY FELLOW WHITES.

    Revolution is impossible cause of drones, which is why we steamrolled Afghanistan.
    , @BB753
    The only way to drain the swamp is for Trump to go full Putin on the deep state and the Silicon Valley oligarchs. He should surround himself with young military brass, non-corrupt intelligence officers and eager young attorneys. And start taking down his enemies one by one. With congressmen and senators, the only way to have them obey Trump and not Romney, McCain or Ryan is to either bribe or blackbail them. Play dirty if necessary. Nobody ever won in politics by following the rules.
  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack Hanson
    People are going in groups. Four go in, one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him. Come out, rearm.

    Gonna be interesting if Antifa tries to 'Chicago' this.

    Wait, so is it a gunfag dork convention, or a Trump rally?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Lmbo how try hard do you have to be to claim taking a ccw to these things is being a "gunfag".

    Point on the doll where the bad pistol touched you.
  25. Sunbeam says:

    Assuming that McCain does have to resign due to health reasons, does anyone know anything about who the Arizona governor is likely to appoint to finish the term?

    If only Lindsay Graham could go as well.

    Read More
  26. Kevin C. says:
    @Anonymous
    At this point, Trump's theme song should be, "Cuckin' USA", with the refrain, "Everybody's gone cuckin', cuckin' USA."

    Why is it that everyone continues to assume betrayal rather than inability? Given that it happens every single time a Republican is elected to national office, why always the assumption that each and every one of them, every time, chooses to “cuck out”. Would not a better explanation be that our politicians fail to deliver to the Right-wing base not because they are all, individually, unwilling, but that they are unable? That however our government is supposed to work on paper, in real physical life our elected politicians are more figureheads that actual leaders, and all real power belongs to the permanent bureaucracy, Left-wing judges, and the opinion-manufacturing institutions of Academia and mass media. That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    This opinion, which has been expressed by others here and elsewhere, is a steaming pile of hot garbage. It is obvious that Trump is not making a good-faith effort to fulfill his campaign promises. If Trump really was a prisoner in the White House, if he really was working as hard as he could on his old agenda but was unable to get anything done, all he would have to do is call a press conference and say so. He just needs to say, "Look, I'm trying as hard as I can but these obstructionists won't budge. I need you, the people who elected me, to help me." And we would have, gladly. But that call never game. From Election Night onward all we've got is a bunch of reversals, dithering, and lame-ass excuses. Inability it is not a viable theory to explain this. Trump is unwilling.
    , @MEH 0910

    That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?
     
    I know for fucking sure that Trump can pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio at will. He sure the fuck has hinted that he can do that. Let's start with that. And end with that if it doesn't fucking happen.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy. They've had 15 years of experience building ditch-and-earthberm fortifications in the Sandbox, and they could put that experience to good use down Mexico way. The wages and equipment are sunk costs, and the building materials are readily available, so there wouldn't have been any need to wait on Congress to craft a spending bill. The task could have begun in areas where the FedGov already has right-of-way, and would supplement whatever little three-strand barb-wire fences we currently have.

    This would have demonstrated resolve, galvanized the Deplorable base, and forced the globohomo left to play catch-up. It would have been stellar to watch Antifa/LaRaza demonstrators try to interfere with a U.S. military operation while security teams are walking their posts in a military manner and observing everything within sight and hearing.
  27. Kevin C. says:
    @AM

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.
     
    He's not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it's just as moral support. It's part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.

    Also, I don't know how religious you are, but Trump is a deeply religious man, just not in a conventional sense of it. He also appears to value honesty. Between a prayer life and a dedication to doing what's right, I'm not sure he feels like he's alone. Maybe some bad moments, but regular prayer certainly helps.

    Plus when you can get a set of people starting a prayer chain like this on YouTube for you, it might not be so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdM7qgeORQM

    If you want to understand the Trumpain mindset better, I'd suggest reading The Power of Positive Thinking. Trump actually attended services by Norman Pearle (author) and he was in every way a mentor to Trump.

    He’s not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it’s just as moral support. It’s part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.

    Iron Law of Oligarchy: we, the masses, don’t count. Only elites matter. The DC swamp may not be the world, but they put on a good show of ruling it, and their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    >their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.

    Don't agree at all. They could collapse overnight, just like the Soviet Union. If their control was unshakeable they wouldn't need to oppress us. Although on the other hand, they hate us, so they enjoy it.

  28. @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he’s tired of being demonized. Maybe he’s threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn’t getting him anything now that he’s president.

    He can’t fight everybody he needs to fight at once.

    There are three sides:

    1. America the country (us, his base, enough to elect him, not enough to govern)

    2. America the empire (Bush people, Mil/Ind complex, corporate over 50)

    3. Post-American globalism (Obama people, SV, corporate under 50)

    The most natural combination is 1. and 2. vs 3. and that’s what we’re seeing. It’s simple triage. Can’t afford to fight 2. until 3. is manageable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    Really? I think the "division" between your "2" and "3" is much smaller than you think, and shrinking, particularly as more of #2 die off and as #3 become more willing to let Big Money buy indulgences in the form of culture-war signaling. If anything, we're seeing #2 and #3 together against #1, and that's a battle the latter cannot hope to win.
  29. Kevin C. says:
    @BenKenobi
    "The God-Emperor has dissolved the Congress. The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away."

    Let's just get it over with and see where the chips fall.

    Yeah, a lot of people seem to be calling for this sort of thing. I don’t think Trump (or any president) has the power to pull it off.

    Read More
  30. Kevin C. says:
    @Sean c
    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.

    I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.

    I have to disagree. I think that even if he had Congress on his side, even together they’d be no match for the power of the real government, the permanent government that’s immune to elections.

    Read More
  31. @Kevin C.

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible.
     
    Not much "maybe" about it. No other candidate could have done much better. Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn't answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president. There is no "draining the swamp", because the swamp holds all power. Voting changes nothing. Protests accomplish nothing. And "2nd amendment solutions" are dangerous nonsense that misunderstands modern warfare; to the extent mass uprisings of armed civilians were ever a viable thing, that time is over, and rebellion impossible.

    Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn’t answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president.

    Yes, but it is divided within itself. The only way to defeat it is to leverage those divisions, not to take it head-on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    Yes, but it is divided within itself.
     
    Is it? [Citation needed], as they say.
  32. Kevin C. says:
    @Tulip
    Trump showed it could be done (running on an economic nationalist platform).

    Trump is showing it can not be done (governing on an economic nationalist platform).

    There needs to be some serious de-cucking in the 2018 primaries if we are to save the Republic.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.

    It doesn’t matter; those “real American patriots” would be no more able to accomplish the agenda than “the cucks”. When are you all going to wake up and realize that it doesn’t matter who we vote into office, nothing will change. Elections. Do. Not. Matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Elections. Do. Not. Matter.
     
    Yes they do. We got Trump. He isn't perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch. And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.
  33. Kevin C. says:
    @Desiderius

    Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn’t answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president.
     
    Yes, but it is divided within itself. The only way to defeat it is to leverage those divisions, not to take it head-on.

    Yes, but it is divided within itself.

    Is it? [Citation needed], as they say.

    Read More
  34. Kevin C. says:
    @Desiderius

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he’s tired of being demonized. Maybe he’s threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn’t getting him anything now that he’s president.
     
    He can't fight everybody he needs to fight at once.

    There are three sides:

    1. America the country (us, his base, enough to elect him, not enough to govern)

    2. America the empire (Bush people, Mil/Ind complex, corporate over 50)

    3. Post-American globalism (Obama people, SV, corporate under 50)

    The most natural combination is 1. and 2. vs 3. and that's what we're seeing. It's simple triage. Can't afford to fight 2. until 3. is manageable.

    Really? I think the “division” between your “2″ and “3″ is much smaller than you think, and shrinking, particularly as more of #2 die off and as #3 become more willing to let Big Money buy indulgences in the form of culture-war signaling. If anything, we’re seeing #2 and #3 together against #1, and that’s a battle the latter cannot hope to win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Issac
    I think Desiderius was rather astute there, actually. #2 emptied a full broad-side into Trump recently over Charlottesville. They're clearly still keen on their alliance with #3. Given that the primary victims of the signal war are working class whites, I'd call it a wash for them. Longer-term considerations might upset the alliance at some point, but corporate seems comfortable attempting to manage a true multi-ethnic empire of squabbling militant ethnocentrics, so long as said ethnocentrics aren't white. The only buy-in your get with #2 is by sidelining your moral compass and giving them foreign wars, foreign workers, and domestic tax cuts.
    , @anon
    Kevin you are on a major roll with this thread . Half the comments are from you . Nevertheless I agree with Most of what you write . Also your cadence and matter of fact nature are quite amusing in print.
    Best Regards
  35. @Kevin C.
    Why is it that everyone continues to assume betrayal rather than inability? Given that it happens every single time a Republican is elected to national office, why always the assumption that each and every one of them, every time, chooses to "cuck out". Would not a better explanation be that our politicians fail to deliver to the Right-wing base not because they are all, individually, unwilling, but that they are unable? That however our government is supposed to work on paper, in real physical life our elected politicians are more figureheads that actual leaders, and all real power belongs to the permanent bureaucracy, Left-wing judges, and the opinion-manufacturing institutions of Academia and mass media. That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?

    This opinion, which has been expressed by others here and elsewhere, is a steaming pile of hot garbage. It is obvious that Trump is not making a good-faith effort to fulfill his campaign promises. If Trump really was a prisoner in the White House, if he really was working as hard as he could on his old agenda but was unable to get anything done, all he would have to do is call a press conference and say so. He just needs to say, “Look, I’m trying as hard as I can but these obstructionists won’t budge. I need you, the people who elected me, to help me.” And we would have, gladly. But that call never game. From Election Night onward all we’ve got is a bunch of reversals, dithering, and lame-ass excuses. Inability it is not a viable theory to explain this. Trump is unwilling.

    Read More
  36. MEH 0910 says:
    @Kevin C.
    Why is it that everyone continues to assume betrayal rather than inability? Given that it happens every single time a Republican is elected to national office, why always the assumption that each and every one of them, every time, chooses to "cuck out". Would not a better explanation be that our politicians fail to deliver to the Right-wing base not because they are all, individually, unwilling, but that they are unable? That however our government is supposed to work on paper, in real physical life our elected politicians are more figureheads that actual leaders, and all real power belongs to the permanent bureaucracy, Left-wing judges, and the opinion-manufacturing institutions of Academia and mass media. That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?

    That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?

    I know for fucking sure that Trump can pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio at will. He sure the fuck has hinted that he can do that. Let’s start with that. And end with that if it doesn’t fucking happen.

    Read More
  37. Hunsdon says:
    @MEH 0910

    I’m not giving up on President Trump.
     
    Trump hinted that he was going to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you hint something to me, and you don't follow through, I give up on you. In fact, I don't just give up on you, I turn against you!!!

    Must be awful lonely.

    Read More
  38. Issac says:
    @Kevin C.
    Really? I think the "division" between your "2" and "3" is much smaller than you think, and shrinking, particularly as more of #2 die off and as #3 become more willing to let Big Money buy indulgences in the form of culture-war signaling. If anything, we're seeing #2 and #3 together against #1, and that's a battle the latter cannot hope to win.

    I think Desiderius was rather astute there, actually. #2 emptied a full broad-side into Trump recently over Charlottesville. They’re clearly still keen on their alliance with #3. Given that the primary victims of the signal war are working class whites, I’d call it a wash for them. Longer-term considerations might upset the alliance at some point, but corporate seems comfortable attempting to manage a true multi-ethnic empire of squabbling militant ethnocentrics, so long as said ethnocentrics aren’t white. The only buy-in your get with #2 is by sidelining your moral compass and giving them foreign wars, foreign workers, and domestic tax cuts.

    Read More
  39. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Kevin C.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.
     
    It doesn't matter; those "real American patriots" would be no more able to accomplish the agenda than "the cucks". When are you all going to wake up and realize that it doesn't matter who we vote into office, nothing will change. Elections. Do. Not. Matter.

    Elections. Do. Not. Matter.

    Yes they do. We got Trump. He isn’t perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch. And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    He isn’t perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch
     
    And how long before Gorsuch ends up like John "Schrödinger's Tax" Roberts? Supposedly "Right-wing" appointees to the court steadily move Left, while Left-wing appointees stay Left. It's a one-way ratchet, and you shouldn't expect Gorsuch to accomplish anything. Particularly when I remember back during the nomination the more "moderate" Lefty columnists explaining to their fellows why they shouldn't panic about Gorsuch, how "moderate" and not "extreme" his positions were.

    And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.
     
    Perhaps, but only in terms of speed. It may take longer, but we're still going to end up in the same place we would have been under Hillary, if only a few years later. Electing Trump, or any other Republican, only at best slows the inevitable Leftward drift (five centuries and counting!) at best.
  40. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Kevin C.
    Really? I think the "division" between your "2" and "3" is much smaller than you think, and shrinking, particularly as more of #2 die off and as #3 become more willing to let Big Money buy indulgences in the form of culture-war signaling. If anything, we're seeing #2 and #3 together against #1, and that's a battle the latter cannot hope to win.

    Kevin you are on a major roll with this thread . Half the comments are from you . Nevertheless I agree with Most of what you write . Also your cadence and matter of fact nature are quite amusing in print.
    Best Regards

    Read More
  41. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    At this point, Trump's theme song should be, "Cuckin' USA", with the refrain, "Everybody's gone cuckin', cuckin' USA."

    At this point, Trump’s theme song should be, “Cuckin’ USA”, with the refrain, “Everybody’s gone cuckin’, cuckin’ USA.”

    This is comic platinum !!!!!!!!!!
    Funniest thing I have seen all week . Kudos brotha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
  42. @Kevin C.

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible.
     
    Not much "maybe" about it. No other candidate could have done much better. Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn't answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president. There is no "draining the swamp", because the swamp holds all power. Voting changes nothing. Protests accomplish nothing. And "2nd amendment solutions" are dangerous nonsense that misunderstands modern warfare; to the extent mass uprisings of armed civilians were ever a viable thing, that time is over, and rebellion impossible.

    HELLO MY FELLOW WHITES.

    Revolution is impossible cause of drones, which is why we steamrolled Afghanistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    And the way Assad put down that insurgency tout d' suite.
    , @SteveRogers42
    And why Iraq is quiet as a mouse pissin' on cotton.
    , @Kevin C.
    We're losing the GWOT because we're not truly fighting it. As someone once said, the US military in Vietnam was not defeated by the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong, but by the Press and the State Department. Would we have ISIS if we'd treated Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo? How long would it take a Patton or MacArthur, given free reign, to smack down the Pashtuns? We haven't won because large portions of the Deep State are more on the side of the Muslims than the Pentagon ("far-group" versus "out-group" dynamic), and hamstring our troops with lawfare, unworkable ROEs, and general sabotage, combined with commanders selected more and more for loyalty to liberal politics (and thus given to siding with the Muslim enemy). I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in "insurrection".
  43. @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    >What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring

    Trump (a capitalist oligarch type) never wanted to change things in a fundamental manner. For that matter, I’m not sure most of the commenters on this blog want to change things in a fundental manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    One thing to remember about The Don is that he isn't really a revolutionary storm-the-ramparts type. His positions would have been considered blandly self-evident and unremarkably centrist in 1977. Control illegal immigration? Maximize blue-collar employment by supporting a strong manufacturing base? Avoid a war with Russia? (Yawn. What else ya got?) It's a symptom of how far we've fallen that these positions are even considered up for debate, let along racist/nazi/OMG. He was by far the best option available to Heritage Americans, but I don't know if he will ever produce the kick-over-the-moneychangers'-table event that we really need.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that for all his belligerent rhetoric, he's never actually dealt with violence, either personally or professionally. His concept of "tough", "ruthless", "killers" are businessmen who make successful business deals. In his heart of hearts, he thinks that everything can be negotiated peacefully -- he wrote Art of the Deal, not the Art of War. While this is a vitally-important skillset, it doesn't give him the perspective to realize that --bottom line -- those who oppose him want him, his family, and everyone who looks like him to go extinct.
  44. @Anonymous
    Wait, so is it a gunfag dork convention, or a Trump rally?

    Lmbo how try hard do you have to be to claim taking a ccw to these things is being a “gunfag”.

    Point on the doll where the bad pistol touched you.

    Read More
  45. @Charles Pewitt
    President Trump should stand with former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio by praising the great work Sheriff Arpaio did to protect the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions should make it clear that the bogus charges brought against Sheriff Joe Arpaio were politically motivated.

    President Trump should strongly suggest that sometime before October of this year he will negate the legal trouble of Sheriff Arpaio and begin investigations into the politically motivated attacks against Sheriff Arpaio.

    100% this.

    Read More
  46. @Kevin C.

    He’s not fighting the entire country alone. We do count, even if it’s just as moral support. It’s part of the reason, I think, he holds rallies. To speak directly to the people and remember that the DC swamp is not the world.
     
    Iron Law of Oligarchy: we, the masses, don't count. Only elites matter. The DC swamp may not be the world, but they put on a good show of ruling it, and their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.

    >their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.

    Don’t agree at all. They could collapse overnight, just like the Soviet Union. If their control was unshakeable they wouldn’t need to oppress us. Although on the other hand, they hate us, so they enjoy it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    Although on the other hand, they hate us, so they enjoy it.
     
    Exactly. They're a fanatical, universalist religion, who want all unbelievers to convert or die. They need no other reason to oppress, and, ultimately, exterminate those of us who will not convert. Sure, their religion is insane, and doomed to collapse (and take industrial civilization with it permanently), but they've got enough resources they can loot to prop themselves up to make a very good go at rendering us extinct before that day finally comes.
  47. I know, right?

    This post of Steve’s has got to be the most depressing one of the entire summer. Feels like the President is giving up before he barely started. Not as though anyone expected him to keep trying to make good on his campaign promises into the second yr, but barely seven months since he took office and he calls it quits?

    Very, very depressing to think about.

    Read More
  48. A preening and overweening Magic Negro shit-show is now commencing in Phoenix. This is pure SJW, cuckservative edition.

    Read More
  49. @Kevin C.
    Why is it that everyone continues to assume betrayal rather than inability? Given that it happens every single time a Republican is elected to national office, why always the assumption that each and every one of them, every time, chooses to "cuck out". Would not a better explanation be that our politicians fail to deliver to the Right-wing base not because they are all, individually, unwilling, but that they are unable? That however our government is supposed to work on paper, in real physical life our elected politicians are more figureheads that actual leaders, and all real power belongs to the permanent bureaucracy, Left-wing judges, and the opinion-manufacturing institutions of Academia and mass media. That Trump has not built the wall because no president has the power to do so anymore. Is this really so unthinkable?

    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy. They’ve had 15 years of experience building ditch-and-earthberm fortifications in the Sandbox, and they could put that experience to good use down Mexico way. The wages and equipment are sunk costs, and the building materials are readily available, so there wouldn’t have been any need to wait on Congress to craft a spending bill. The task could have begun in areas where the FedGov already has right-of-way, and would supplement whatever little three-strand barb-wire fences we currently have.

    This would have demonstrated resolve, galvanized the Deplorable base, and forced the globohomo left to play catch-up. It would have been stellar to watch Antifa/LaRaza demonstrators try to interfere with a U.S. military operation while security teams are walking their posts in a military manner and observing everything within sight and hearing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy.
     
    At which point said outfits suffer "unexpected delays", "supply chain problems" and various other "issues" as all the more Left-leaning folks in the command and logistics chains engage in delaying tactics, bothering-by-the-book, malicious compliance, and all the other foot-dragging techniques, everthing short of outright insubordination (and maybe even some of that), delaying until some Lefty federal judge can produce the requisite sophistry "explaining" how this is a violation of Posse Comitatus or separation of powers or whatever and get it shut down, while State Department apparatchiks write memos explaining how this sort of movement of military outifits is an unwise provocation to Mexico, and how the interests of Amercan Diplomacy require pulling them back, with leaks to the press who can then proclaim Trump a war-mongering hothead for failing to listen to these wise fellows.
  50. @Jack Hanson
    People are going in groups. Four go in, one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him. Come out, rearm.

    Gonna be interesting if Antifa tries to 'Chicago' this.

    one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him

    There are handy vests for that. Also, here’s Willem Dafoe’s best work:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I would not want to gamble on getting caught with such an item when going to a rally to see the POTUS where there is a security checkpoint.
  51. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    one guy stays outside with their CCWs with him
     
    There are handy vests for that. Also, here's Willem Dafoe’s best work:

    https://youtu.be/KTMydV6n1Hk?t=27s

    I would not want to gamble on getting caught with such an item when going to a rally to see the POTUS where there is a security checkpoint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I meant for the perimeter-posted designated ‘driver’ …

    Four go in, one guy stays outside
     
    I agree that wearing a locked secure backpack would be a far wiser choice. :)
  52. Trump speaking live now. I’m kind of hoping he trolls everybody by bringing out Henry Rollins dressed as Rudolf Hess.

    Read More
  53. Hunsdon says:
    @Jack Hanson
    HELLO MY FELLOW WHITES.

    Revolution is impossible cause of drones, which is why we steamrolled Afghanistan.

    And the way Assad put down that insurgency tout d’ suite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those "insurgents"? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?
  54. @27 year old
    >What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring

    Trump (a capitalist oligarch type) never wanted to change things in a fundamental manner. For that matter, I'm not sure most of the commenters on this blog want to change things in a fundental manner.

    One thing to remember about The Don is that he isn’t really a revolutionary storm-the-ramparts type. His positions would have been considered blandly self-evident and unremarkably centrist in 1977. Control illegal immigration? Maximize blue-collar employment by supporting a strong manufacturing base? Avoid a war with Russia? (Yawn. What else ya got?) It’s a symptom of how far we’ve fallen that these positions are even considered up for debate, let along racist/nazi/OMG. He was by far the best option available to Heritage Americans, but I don’t know if he will ever produce the kick-over-the-moneychangers’-table event that we really need.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that for all his belligerent rhetoric, he’s never actually dealt with violence, either personally or professionally. His concept of “tough”, “ruthless”, “killers” are businessmen who make successful business deals. In his heart of hearts, he thinks that everything can be negotiated peacefully — he wrote Art of the Deal, not the Art of War. While this is a vitally-important skillset, it doesn’t give him the perspective to realize that –bottom line — those who oppose him want him, his family, and everyone who looks like him to go extinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    It’s a symptom of how far we’ve fallen that these positions are even considered up for debate, let along racist/nazi/OMG.
     
    Leftward ratchet, five centuries and still going strong.

    While this is a vitally-important skillset, it doesn’t give him the perspective to realize that –bottom line — those who oppose him want him, his family, and everyone who looks like him to go extinct.
     
    Yeah, expect the Trump family to end up like the Romanovs (Chris Matthews has compared the two families several times now).
  55. @Jack Hanson
    HELLO MY FELLOW WHITES.

    Revolution is impossible cause of drones, which is why we steamrolled Afghanistan.

    And why Iraq is quiet as a mouse pissin’ on cotton.

    Read More
  56. @MEH 0910

    I’m not giving up on President Trump.
     
    Trump hinted that he was going to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you hint something to me, and you don't follow through, I give up on you. In fact, I don't just give up on you, I turn against you!!!

    “If you hint something to me, and you don’t follow through, I give up on you.” so, you have never been in a relationship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    So that's it? We're in a "relationship" with President Trump?
  57. @Jack Hanson
    I would not want to gamble on getting caught with such an item when going to a rally to see the POTUS where there is a security checkpoint.

    I meant for the perimeter-posted designated ‘driver’ …

    Four go in, one guy stays outside

    I agree that wearing a locked secure backpack would be a far wiser choice. :)

    Read More
  58. Man it’s like everyone here decided to kick their heroin habit just this morning. And the puking is kicking in.

    In the last 50 years how many national politicians gave a real shit about the real America? There was Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, notice a pattern with those two. Probably Ronald Reagan and I would say Donald Trump. Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.

    So Trump hasn’t been able to defeat the world’s billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.

    Read More
    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I'd throw Ron Paul into the mix, but yeah.

    I'm not giving up, and I'm not giving in.
    , @Kevin C.

    Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.
     
    The Left has been winning for centuries; why would that stop now?

    So Trump hasn’t been able to defeat the world’s billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.
     
    Exactly. The balance of power is stacked insurmountably against us. It doesn't matter who we elected, no mere President, no mere Congress, is enough to match the sheer might arrayed against us.
    , @Dissident
    A dissenting view on Ronald Reagan:

    How Right Was Reagan?

    by Richard Gamble, The American Conservative, May 2009

    Selected excerpts:

    In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that the Reagan Revolution fundamentally altered the nation’s trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionist government. Conservatism in the 1980s made its peace with much of liberalism—if not with all of its legislative agenda, then at least with its means to power. Republicans and Democrats now argue over how big the bailouts should be or how long the troops should remain deployed, rarely about first principles.
     

    Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative.
     

    But some conservative dissidents have recently blamed Reagan for giving his benediction to the most culturally corrosive tendencies in the American character.
     

    Dissent about Reagan among conservative intellectuals goes back surprisingly far, back even to Reagan’s first term. Historian John Lukacs, writing in Outgrowing Democracy (published in 1984 and later reissued under the title A New Republic), found it necessary to put Reagan’s “conservatism” in quotation marks, calling it “lamentably shortsighted and shallow.”
     

    Conservatives ought to have enough confidence in their own principles to examine Reagan’s ambiguous legacy in light of those very tenets.
     

    Maybe the Reagan we think we remember is the very thing most likely to distract us from painful self-examination and serious reckoning with who we are as a people and how we got this way.
     
  59. Tiny Duck says:

    Tired of all that winning? So much for MAGA!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Tiny, did President Trump put you up to saying that?
    , @MEH 0910
    Trump pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio! MAGA!!!!!
  60. Kevin C. says:
    @anonymous

    Elections. Do. Not. Matter.
     
    Yes they do. We got Trump. He isn't perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch. And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.

    He isn’t perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch

    And how long before Gorsuch ends up like John “Schrödinger’s Tax” Roberts? Supposedly “Right-wing” appointees to the court steadily move Left, while Left-wing appointees stay Left. It’s a one-way ratchet, and you shouldn’t expect Gorsuch to accomplish anything. Particularly when I remember back during the nomination the more “moderate” Lefty columnists explaining to their fellows why they shouldn’t panic about Gorsuch, how “moderate” and not “extreme” his positions were.

    And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.

    Perhaps, but only in terms of speed. It may take longer, but we’re still going to end up in the same place we would have been under Hillary, if only a few years later. Electing Trump, or any other Republican, only at best slows the inevitable Leftward drift (five centuries and counting!) at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Oh boy, its "Gorsuch is a cryptoliberal despite 20+ years of an originalism paper trail" theory rearing its head yet again.


    Lmao bray on Kevin. Bray on.

    , @Dan Hayes
    Kevin C.:

    SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch will not morph into a crypto-liberal!

    Why? Because he will spend his term fulfilling the legacy of his late mother whose political career was unfairly terminated. His operational mode of action will be: Don't get mad; Get even!
  61. Kevin C. says:
    @Jack Hanson
    HELLO MY FELLOW WHITES.

    Revolution is impossible cause of drones, which is why we steamrolled Afghanistan.

    We’re losing the GWOT because we’re not truly fighting it. As someone once said, the US military in Vietnam was not defeated by the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong, but by the Press and the State Department. Would we have ISIS if we’d treated Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo? How long would it take a Patton or MacArthur, given free reign, to smack down the Pashtuns? We haven’t won because large portions of the Deep State are more on the side of the Muslims than the Pentagon (“far-group” versus “out-group” dynamic), and hamstring our troops with lawfare, unworkable ROEs, and general sabotage, combined with commanders selected more and more for loyalty to liberal politics (and thus given to siding with the Muslim enemy). I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    "My fellow whites, the only allowable resistance is posting pithy comments on a niche blog."

    The Russians didn't try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it.

    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you're posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.
     
    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).
  62. Kevin C. says:
    @27 year old
    >their iron control of this portion of the world is pretty much unshakeable.

    Don't agree at all. They could collapse overnight, just like the Soviet Union. If their control was unshakeable they wouldn't need to oppress us. Although on the other hand, they hate us, so they enjoy it.

    Although on the other hand, they hate us, so they enjoy it.

    Exactly. They’re a fanatical, universalist religion, who want all unbelievers to convert or die. They need no other reason to oppress, and, ultimately, exterminate those of us who will not convert. Sure, their religion is insane, and doomed to collapse (and take industrial civilization with it permanently), but they’ve got enough resources they can loot to prop themselves up to make a very good go at rendering us extinct before that day finally comes.

    Read More
  63. @Kevin C.

    He isn’t perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch
     
    And how long before Gorsuch ends up like John "Schrödinger's Tax" Roberts? Supposedly "Right-wing" appointees to the court steadily move Left, while Left-wing appointees stay Left. It's a one-way ratchet, and you shouldn't expect Gorsuch to accomplish anything. Particularly when I remember back during the nomination the more "moderate" Lefty columnists explaining to their fellows why they shouldn't panic about Gorsuch, how "moderate" and not "extreme" his positions were.

    And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.
     
    Perhaps, but only in terms of speed. It may take longer, but we're still going to end up in the same place we would have been under Hillary, if only a few years later. Electing Trump, or any other Republican, only at best slows the inevitable Leftward drift (five centuries and counting!) at best.

    Oh boy, its “Gorsuch is a cryptoliberal despite 20+ years of an originalism paper trail” theory rearing its head yet again.

    Lmao bray on Kevin. Bray on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    And I'm sure you could have said the same thing about Roberts back when he first got on SCOTUS. The Leftward drift of Rightwing appointees to SCOTUS is well-documented and long-established.
    One might start with these:
    Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older
    The Supreme Court is moving left. Here’s why.
    Could Neil Gorsuch Make the Supreme Court Move Left?
  64. Hunsdon says:
    @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Man it's like everyone here decided to kick their heroin habit just this morning. And the puking is kicking in.

    In the last 50 years how many national politicians gave a real shit about the real America? There was Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, notice a pattern with those two. Probably Ronald Reagan and I would say Donald Trump. Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.

    So Trump hasn't been able to defeat the world's billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.

    I’d throw Ron Paul into the mix, but yeah.

    I’m not giving up, and I’m not giving in.

    Read More
  65. anonguy says:
    @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone.

    Trying to impose traditional constitutional principles on the contemporary American public is probably as futile as trying to do so on any other nation whose people don’t intuitively feel these are virtues.

    Respect for free speech, all that, just isn’t what most Americans value these days, hence its slow extinction. It really is just not who we are these days, whether right or left. Other concerns are our priorities.

    Not good or bad, just the times in which we live.

    Read More
  66. Kevin C. says:
    @SteveRogers42
    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy. They've had 15 years of experience building ditch-and-earthberm fortifications in the Sandbox, and they could put that experience to good use down Mexico way. The wages and equipment are sunk costs, and the building materials are readily available, so there wouldn't have been any need to wait on Congress to craft a spending bill. The task could have begun in areas where the FedGov already has right-of-way, and would supplement whatever little three-strand barb-wire fences we currently have.

    This would have demonstrated resolve, galvanized the Deplorable base, and forced the globohomo left to play catch-up. It would have been stellar to watch Antifa/LaRaza demonstrators try to interfere with a U.S. military operation while security teams are walking their posts in a military manner and observing everything within sight and hearing.

    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy.

    At which point said outfits suffer “unexpected delays”, “supply chain problems” and various other “issues” as all the more Left-leaning folks in the command and logistics chains engage in delaying tactics, bothering-by-the-book, malicious compliance, and all the other foot-dragging techniques, everthing short of outright insubordination (and maybe even some of that), delaying until some Lefty federal judge can produce the requisite sophistry “explaining” how this is a violation of Posse Comitatus or separation of powers or whatever and get it shut down, while State Department apparatchiks write memos explaining how this sort of movement of military outifits is an unwise provocation to Mexico, and how the interests of Amercan Diplomacy require pulling them back, with leaks to the press who can then proclaim Trump a war-mongering hothead for failing to listen to these wise fellows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Got it. You don't know about how war works and you also don't get how federal procurement works as well. Thanks for underlining that for us.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Inter arma, silent leges.
  67. Kevin C. says:
    @Hunsdon
    And the way Assad put down that insurgency tout d' suite.

    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those “insurgents”? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You tell me bro. Its your hypothesis. Its not on us to prove it while you blackpill furiously about how we are all doomed.
    , @anonymous

    Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?
     
    Probably any one of the nations around the globe that doesn't like the US being the world's 800 pound gorilla.
    , @anon
    Kev
    This fact remains regardless of who is arming the rebels :
    Assad the noble lion of the desert and the Syrian army , the Iranian army , the Russian army and the terrorist army of Hezbola combined have taken 5+ years to defeat a gang of drug addled goat boys and teenage retards from Europe. And still the conflict goes on. That is all.
    , @Corn
    Before he deleted his Twitter the blogger 28Sherman tweeted something to the effect: "Imagine China funding or supplying an armed insurrection in Appalachia."
  68. @Kevin C.
    We're losing the GWOT because we're not truly fighting it. As someone once said, the US military in Vietnam was not defeated by the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong, but by the Press and the State Department. Would we have ISIS if we'd treated Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo? How long would it take a Patton or MacArthur, given free reign, to smack down the Pashtuns? We haven't won because large portions of the Deep State are more on the side of the Muslims than the Pentagon ("far-group" versus "out-group" dynamic), and hamstring our troops with lawfare, unworkable ROEs, and general sabotage, combined with commanders selected more and more for loyalty to liberal politics (and thus given to siding with the Muslim enemy). I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in "insurrection".

    “My fellow whites, the only allowable resistance is posting pithy comments on a niche blog.”

    The Russians didn’t try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it.

    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you’re posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    • Troll: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "The Russians didn’t try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it."

    Eh, I don't really recognize your handle, so you might be one of the posters like Truth or that Tiny guy.

    But depending on how you look at things, he's right.

    See the firepower is there, without even using nukes. You just have to be willing to do things that were commonly accepted practice virtually everywhere until relatively recently.

    So Afghanistan? Genghis Khan would have exterminated the Pashtuns. If you do not give two f#$cks which most people didn't until sometime in the last century there are all kinds of things you can do.

    Start at the Pakistan border and advance inland - killing anything human you see. Man, woman, child, it dies. Burn the buildings, sow the fields with salt (rhetorically, really what you are doing is destroying wells, food reserves, fields, etc).

    "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."

    Doesn't work if you get rid of the sea.

    Not that I expect this to happen. But unlike taking North Korea or Iran this is eminently doable. Military targets, even irregular ones, tend to pick up tricks and hide in caves. Civilian villages (in the end they are the ones who feed and support all military forces) don't have that ability.

    If you have the stones to throw MOABS at villages and fully intend to kill as many people as possible, well there isn't much the Afghanis can do about it. And that IS different from what the Russians did to Grozny. The Great Khan was harder than Stalin, Putin, or any of the rest ever will be.

    Thing is, I don't want to kill Afghan one. I want this country to leave that place, never go back, and absolutely not bring in any Muslims of any sort.

    But just thinking things out... if for some reason Trump wanted to play it this way, what stops it? Assuming he could survive the domestic problems it would create. In the end China wouldn't care. India would give us an unofficial high five. Europe doesn't matter at all really.

    Nasty world though. Because a country resurrecting the old ways is going to make it just that much easier for another to do the same. And there are lots of problematic populations in thew world that whatever powers that be would like to see disappear, either as victims or refugees.
    , @Stacy235l
    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you’re posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.

    What is a "Nazi battle flag". I really don't think I like having "Nazi" and battle flag put together like that.
  69. Kevin C. says:
    @SteveRogers42
    One thing to remember about The Don is that he isn't really a revolutionary storm-the-ramparts type. His positions would have been considered blandly self-evident and unremarkably centrist in 1977. Control illegal immigration? Maximize blue-collar employment by supporting a strong manufacturing base? Avoid a war with Russia? (Yawn. What else ya got?) It's a symptom of how far we've fallen that these positions are even considered up for debate, let along racist/nazi/OMG. He was by far the best option available to Heritage Americans, but I don't know if he will ever produce the kick-over-the-moneychangers'-table event that we really need.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that for all his belligerent rhetoric, he's never actually dealt with violence, either personally or professionally. His concept of "tough", "ruthless", "killers" are businessmen who make successful business deals. In his heart of hearts, he thinks that everything can be negotiated peacefully -- he wrote Art of the Deal, not the Art of War. While this is a vitally-important skillset, it doesn't give him the perspective to realize that --bottom line -- those who oppose him want him, his family, and everyone who looks like him to go extinct.

    It’s a symptom of how far we’ve fallen that these positions are even considered up for debate, let along racist/nazi/OMG.

    Leftward ratchet, five centuries and still going strong.

    While this is a vitally-important skillset, it doesn’t give him the perspective to realize that –bottom line — those who oppose him want him, his family, and everyone who looks like him to go extinct.

    Yeah, expect the Trump family to end up like the Romanovs (Chris Matthews has compared the two families several times now).

    Read More
  70. MEH 0910 says:
    @It's All Ball Bearings
    "If you hint something to me, and you don’t follow through, I give up on you." so, you have never been in a relationship?

    So that’s it? We’re in a “relationship” with President Trump?

    Read More
  71. MEH 0910 says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Tired of all that winning? So much for MAGA!

    Tiny, did President Trump put you up to saying that?

    Read More
  72. Kevin C. says:
    @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Man it's like everyone here decided to kick their heroin habit just this morning. And the puking is kicking in.

    In the last 50 years how many national politicians gave a real shit about the real America? There was Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, notice a pattern with those two. Probably Ronald Reagan and I would say Donald Trump. Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.

    So Trump hasn't been able to defeat the world's billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.

    Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.

    The Left has been winning for centuries; why would that stop now?

    So Trump hasn’t been able to defeat the world’s billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.

    Exactly. The balance of power is stacked insurmountably against us. It doesn’t matter who we elected, no mere President, no mere Congress, is enough to match the sheer might arrayed against us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Pippin's about to save Faramir if you don't get back up there and make sure the guards follow your orders. Time's a wasting!
  73. Kevin C. says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Oh boy, its "Gorsuch is a cryptoliberal despite 20+ years of an originalism paper trail" theory rearing its head yet again.


    Lmao bray on Kevin. Bray on.

    And I’m sure you could have said the same thing about Roberts back when he first got on SCOTUS. The Leftward drift of Rightwing appointees to SCOTUS is well-documented and long-established.
    One might start with these:
    Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older
    The Supreme Court is moving left. Here’s why.
    Could Neil Gorsuch Make the Supreme Court Move Left?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Whoa some hard hitting, totally factual not at all speculatory argument by assertion pieces there.

    Lmfao.
    , @Kevin C.
    To follow up, look at how the military has responded to Trump's order to get rid of the trannies:

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford stated after Trump's trio of tweets that “there will be no modifications to the current policy until the president's direction has been received by the secretary of Defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance." Mattis, who had maintained the policy of allowing existing transgender service members to serve openly but had recently extended the review period to study policy for admitting new transgender service members, was on vacation when Trump issued the tweets.
     

    Today in a statement, Defense Secretary James Mattis said he "will develop a study and implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law."
     
    "extended the review period to study policy"; "develop a study and implementation plan". So Trump orders it of the military, and it's done on "day one"?
  74. @Kevin C.
    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those "insurgents"? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    You tell me bro. Its your hypothesis. Its not on us to prove it while you blackpill furiously about how we are all doomed.

    Read More
  75. anonguy says:
    @Sean c
    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.

    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.

    I don’t know how old you are, but in my lifetime, it has been Reagan for the takedown of the Soviet Union however much he failed on the domestic front. Unbiased historians in the future will agree despite the current agenda-driven dogma that asserts that this was a natural, inevitable phenomenon like, say, immigration or outsourcing.

    As bad as things may seem now to some, the world is a far, far better place than it was during the Cold War. We humans really did have the means and apparent willingness to literally destroy civilization in a flash over our differences. By the grace of God we didn’t.

    Current concerns are comparatively trivial and slower moving. Fretting over dusty Confederate memorials, by both sides, is a luxury provided by not having to worry about nuclear holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Have you overlooked the Russia kerfluffle? US Senators comparing the "Russian interference" in our sacred elections to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor? At least during the Cold War we thought seriously about the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
  76. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Kevin C.
    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those "insurgents"? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    Probably any one of the nations around the globe that doesn’t like the US being the world’s 800 pound gorilla.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Russia has zero experience in supporting guerilla armies and break away regions, right?
  77. @Kevin C.

    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy.
     
    At which point said outfits suffer "unexpected delays", "supply chain problems" and various other "issues" as all the more Left-leaning folks in the command and logistics chains engage in delaying tactics, bothering-by-the-book, malicious compliance, and all the other foot-dragging techniques, everthing short of outright insubordination (and maybe even some of that), delaying until some Lefty federal judge can produce the requisite sophistry "explaining" how this is a violation of Posse Comitatus or separation of powers or whatever and get it shut down, while State Department apparatchiks write memos explaining how this sort of movement of military outifits is an unwise provocation to Mexico, and how the interests of Amercan Diplomacy require pulling them back, with leaks to the press who can then proclaim Trump a war-mongering hothead for failing to listen to these wise fellows.

    Got it. You don’t know about how war works and you also don’t get how federal procurement works as well. Thanks for underlining that for us.

    Read More
  78. @joeyjoejoe
    My suspicion:

    Trump is successful when he is belligerent. He is belligerent because he actually believes the system is wrong, and he wants it to be different (system = alt-left, illegal immigration, war in Afghanistan as of a few years ago, etc etc).

    Trump was very successful with his belligerence: he won the presidency, and defeated the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. His belligerence changed the system (he won: Jeb and Hillary didn't)

    That belligerence is not working in the presidency: he's not getting the Wall, he didn't get Healthcare, he didn't swing the country in his direction in Charlottesville. It is successful with his base: each time he sticks to the script from the campaign, he rises in popularity with his base. But it is not changing the country: it is simply alienating the Left (and the Deep State, and the Republican Party, and the Congress) even more. The country isn't joining him the way it did during the campaign.

    So I am afraid he's really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn't occurring. Maybe its impossible. Maybe he's tired of being demonized. Maybe he's threatened. But the aggressive belligerence (or truth-telling) that got him the presidency isn't getting him anything now that he's president.

    With each drift toward the center (fire Bannon, surge in Afghanistan, conciliatory 2nd statement on Charlottesville, etc) he is losing his edge, losing his reason for being. Without that edge, he's just another politician, and he doesn't have a chance.

    I have really been amazed. With the events* in Charlottesville, he was clearly correct: supporting even bad guys' right to speak is (was) fundamentally Liberal, and has been throughout my lifetime (Skokie was a Liberal declaration of Rights-not Rightwing or Conservative declaration). And yet he is literally the only prominent American saying so. His fellow Party members (Romney) don't support that view. Fox News doesn't support that view. Leftist professors who would have defended Skokie 40 years ago don't support that view. A few of us Rightwing, or Libertarian, or Constitutionalist blog commenters don't matter.

    It must get old fighting the entire country alone. Even Trump must get tired of it.

    *I say he was clearly correct, save for the death of the girl. If she was in fact intentionally run over, the driver is clearly a criminal. But that is what a trial is for. Innocent until proven guilty is also a fundamentally Left or Liberal principle.

    joeyjoejoe

    The reason the GOP congress is not passing Trump’s agenda is because they don’t agree with it, not because he’s an asshole. Steve’s right when he says Trump’s greatest accomplishment has been getting elites to say what they really have planned for America.

    Read More
  79. Well Trump threatened to shut down the government if he doesn’t get wall funding. Lets see how it goes.

    Read More
  80. @Kevin C.
    And I'm sure you could have said the same thing about Roberts back when he first got on SCOTUS. The Leftward drift of Rightwing appointees to SCOTUS is well-documented and long-established.
    One might start with these:
    Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older
    The Supreme Court is moving left. Here’s why.
    Could Neil Gorsuch Make the Supreme Court Move Left?

    Whoa some hard hitting, totally factual not at all speculatory argument by assertion pieces there.

    Lmfao.

    Read More
  81. @anonymous

    Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?
     
    Probably any one of the nations around the globe that doesn't like the US being the world's 800 pound gorilla.

    Russia has zero experience in supporting guerilla armies and break away regions, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    The irony of such assistance to these would-be guerillas in the USA is that such assistance will be facilitated by the extremely lax and porous border controls that have been put into place by the guerillas' opponents. The very open borders the elites have demanded will come back to bite them by making such assistance that much more possible.
  82. Whiskey says: • Website

    Trump is cucking out. He has an ultraliberal daughter. But I repeat myself. A daughter is enough to cuck a man, particularly if he tries to appease Daddy’s little Princess. Who 99 times out of a 100 will have nothing but HATE HATE HATE for every White man not Daddy or Uber Alpha or her fabulous gay hairdresser or favorite fashion designer.

    OF COURSE HE’S CUCKING. Ivanka is his daughter. What else did you expect?

    But even if he did not cuck he’d still face defeat. REAL power is held by the bureaucracy, oligarchs who own the media, internet giants, and massive corporations. REAL power is held by permanent deep state intelligence agents who are ultra cucked themselves, and Hollywood, and lifetime Senators.

    WE may have elected Trump but Senators for Life McCain, Graham, and McConnell did most assuredly not assent. Neither did Warren Buffett, Joss Whedon, [his many bimbos], Nancy Pelosi (Congress critter for life), Maxine Waters, or 99.99% of the business, military, and government leadership. To say nothing of the NAACP, $LPC, or Stephen Colbert.

    We have a semi-hereditary oligarchy, not a democracy, and that’s been the case for forty years on at least, maybe longer. Trump is about five months from being removed if that because the oligarchy won’t tolerate him much longer; and they have PLANS FOR US.

    Which amounts to essentially mass Third World immavasion, legal serfdom and slavery for White males lacking status/fame/money; and President Maxine Waters or some such replacing Trump and confiscating most of the deplorable’s property and money to give to … wealthy oligarchs with a trickle going to Blacks and Hispancis. See Zimbabwe. Of course the oligarchs like Whedon will get eaten alive eventually by Black Africans and Muslims … but the thing is they’re stupid.

    Loot at Joss Whedon. The man writes entertainment in movies and TV aimed mostly at women; and can’t figure out that the smart move is to either not ball your bimbo actresses left and right while explaining to your Wife that “I’m a feminist.” Since she’ll eventually figure it out and get you back, but good — that’s human nature. Or go for the bimbo-tastic hookups by divorcing your wife quickly once it becomes obvious you’ve succeeded enough that your casting power overcomes your giant potato head. Get the divorce over quickly before bimbo-ing it up and face no downsides save money.

    But its a stupid move in the extreme to pose as both a happily married man and a “feminist” while screwing every hot young actress, (fans, allegedly according to the ex) and assistants as the probability that some woman is going to be VERY unhappy and retaliate is 100%. No one cares about Michael Bay doing stuff like that because he doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not. He has very little downside — but Bay stands out as a giant in Hollywood being able to add 2 and 2 and get four all day long.

    A smart oligarchy would work with Trump to work out a deal and he seems to have expected that; instead its “Resistance” all the way in prep for replacing him and punishing us Deplorables.

    Read More
  83. @Kevin C.

    Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.
     
    The Left has been winning for centuries; why would that stop now?

    So Trump hasn’t been able to defeat the world’s billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.
     
    Exactly. The balance of power is stacked insurmountably against us. It doesn't matter who we elected, no mere President, no mere Congress, is enough to match the sheer might arrayed against us.

    Pippin’s about to save Faramir if you don’t get back up there and make sure the guards follow your orders. Time’s a wasting!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.
    So, this time it's a comparison to Denethor. Better than the comparison to Grima Wormtongue I once got over at Jim's. But very nerdy namecalling hardly constitutes evidence of a workable plan to defeat the Left, nor a counter-argument against the highlighting of the flaws that render the popular "plans" unworkable; ad hominem is a logical fallacy, you know.
  84. Thomas says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    The big answers tonight will be:

    1) Trump will come to merit a "strange new respect" on the border issue.
    2) No pardon for Joe.
    3) No mention of Kelli Ward, but probably a shout out to John McCain for his service to his country.

    I’d call it “half a loaf.” #1: check; #2 & #3: half credit.

    Read More
  85. Dan Hayes says:
    @Kevin C.

    He isn’t perfect, but he gave us Gorsuch
     
    And how long before Gorsuch ends up like John "Schrödinger's Tax" Roberts? Supposedly "Right-wing" appointees to the court steadily move Left, while Left-wing appointees stay Left. It's a one-way ratchet, and you shouldn't expect Gorsuch to accomplish anything. Particularly when I remember back during the nomination the more "moderate" Lefty columnists explaining to their fellows why they shouldn't panic about Gorsuch, how "moderate" and not "extreme" his positions were.

    And it would be much worse if Hillary had won.
     
    Perhaps, but only in terms of speed. It may take longer, but we're still going to end up in the same place we would have been under Hillary, if only a few years later. Electing Trump, or any other Republican, only at best slows the inevitable Leftward drift (five centuries and counting!) at best.

    Kevin C.:

    SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch will not morph into a crypto-liberal!

    Why? Because he will spend his term fulfilling the legacy of his late mother whose political career was unfairly terminated. His operational mode of action will be: Don’t get mad; Get even!

    Read More
  86. He’s still fighting and all the right people still hate him.
    That alone makes his Presidency worthwhile

    Read More
  87. Sunbeam says:
    @Jack Hanson
    "My fellow whites, the only allowable resistance is posting pithy comments on a niche blog."

    The Russians didn't try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it.

    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you're posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.

    “The Russians didn’t try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it.”

    Eh, I don’t really recognize your handle, so you might be one of the posters like Truth or that Tiny guy.

    But depending on how you look at things, he’s right.

    See the firepower is there, without even using nukes. You just have to be willing to do things that were commonly accepted practice virtually everywhere until relatively recently.

    So Afghanistan? Genghis Khan would have exterminated the Pashtuns. If you do not give two f#$cks which most people didn’t until sometime in the last century there are all kinds of things you can do.

    Start at the Pakistan border and advance inland – killing anything human you see. Man, woman, child, it dies. Burn the buildings, sow the fields with salt (rhetorically, really what you are doing is destroying wells, food reserves, fields, etc).

    “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”

    Doesn’t work if you get rid of the sea.

    Not that I expect this to happen. But unlike taking North Korea or Iran this is eminently doable. Military targets, even irregular ones, tend to pick up tricks and hide in caves. Civilian villages (in the end they are the ones who feed and support all military forces) don’t have that ability.

    If you have the stones to throw MOABS at villages and fully intend to kill as many people as possible, well there isn’t much the Afghanis can do about it. And that IS different from what the Russians did to Grozny. The Great Khan was harder than Stalin, Putin, or any of the rest ever will be.

    Thing is, I don’t want to kill Afghan one. I want this country to leave that place, never go back, and absolutely not bring in any Muslims of any sort.

    But just thinking things out… if for some reason Trump wanted to play it this way, what stops it? Assuming he could survive the domestic problems it would create. In the end China wouldn’t care. India would give us an unofficial high five. Europe doesn’t matter at all really.

    Nasty world though. Because a country resurrecting the old ways is going to make it just that much easier for another to do the same. And there are lots of problematic populations in thew world that whatever powers that be would like to see disappear, either as victims or refugees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I don't recognize your handle, so I assume you're another eeyore blackpiller who looks for any reason to declare defeat.

    Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan.

    "MAN JUST NUKE EM AND COMMIT ATROCITIES CAUSE WE ORDER THE SOLDIERS TO GAME OVER".

    It doesn't work that way with foreigners, nor does it work that way with the US of A.
  88. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack Hanson
    Russia has zero experience in supporting guerilla armies and break away regions, right?

    The irony of such assistance to these would-be guerillas in the USA is that such assistance will be facilitated by the extremely lax and porous border controls that have been put into place by the guerillas’ opponents. The very open borders the elites have demanded will come back to bite them by making such assistance that much more possible.

    Read More
  89. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Kevin C.
    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those "insurgents"? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    Kev
    This fact remains regardless of who is arming the rebels :
    Assad the noble lion of the desert and the Syrian army , the Iranian army , the Russian army and the terrorist army of Hezbola combined have taken 5+ years to defeat a gang of drug addled goat boys and teenage retards from Europe. And still the conflict goes on. That is all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on a Unz.com article.
  90. @Kevin C.
    We're losing the GWOT because we're not truly fighting it. As someone once said, the US military in Vietnam was not defeated by the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong, but by the Press and the State Department. Would we have ISIS if we'd treated Baghdad like Dresden or Tokyo? How long would it take a Patton or MacArthur, given free reign, to smack down the Pashtuns? We haven't won because large portions of the Deep State are more on the side of the Muslims than the Pentagon ("far-group" versus "out-group" dynamic), and hamstring our troops with lawfare, unworkable ROEs, and general sabotage, combined with commanders selected more and more for loyalty to liberal politics (and thus given to siding with the Muslim enemy). I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in "insurrection".

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I'm sure the troops will side with the people who hate them against their friends and family.

    Look at Kevin's posting career for a laugh. This is his MO.
    , @Kevin C.

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?
     
    Yes, but first, one must note that the most basic element of military training is conditioning obedience, right? I hear this same sort of things about the rank-and-file of our police forces. And yet, look at Berkeley, look at Charlottesville. And they don't go through bootcamp, and only risk losing their job and pension for disobedience. In the military, you can still be shot for mutiny, right? How many do you really expect to not fall in line after the first hundred or so of the "disobedient" rank-and-file are executed pour encourager les autres? Add in all the women and minorities who've been added into the ranks. Plus, there's always the possibility of FedGov calling on the UN or NATO for aid, said "aid" coming in the form of outside troops to be "embedded" into each unit to serve, like Soviet Commissars, as watchdogs for any sign of "political unreliability".

    Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?

    And further, think of all the humiliations the Left has already subjected our men in uniform to, with nary a peep or even a resignation in protest in sight. If they haven't decided our Left-wing elites are a domestic enemy of the Constitution by now, what makes you think they ever will?
    , @AM

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?
     
    We would not even have close the military that we do have without the Deplorables. The brass has been infiltrated by the PC types, but there's enough Deplorable generals around still to reverse the trend.
    , @Hunsdon
    If Jim Mattis said he thought there was an unconstitutional coup being launched against the President, a ton of veterans would heed the call.
  91. Boethiuss says:
    @Luke Lea
    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

    I’d be inhaling by now. Whatever it is you’re hoping for, chances are it’s not coming.

    Not even having to do with what Trump wants necessarily but more about what he’s capable of. In football terms, Trump is like the offensive coordinator on game day. He sits in a press box with binoculars and a big posterboard full of numbers and plays. He picks out the one he likes, and tells the quarterback to run it.

    Unfortunately for us, in our world the President is the quarterback. It’s not enough to make a decision, even the right one. You have to execute, and Trump can’t. That’s why he’s being buffeted around by people who don’t necessarily like him. He doesn’t have the connections or the knowledge to execute what he wants, so he’s basically left making speeches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Unfortunately for us, in our world the President is the quarterback. It’s not enough to make a decision, even the right one. You have to execute, and Trump can’t.
     
    I'm assuming you're talking about you, and not the guy who was successful enough to multiply his fortunes in real estate development of all places.

    Cause from Day 1, #NeverTrump has talked about issues so disconnected from the barest facts about Donald Trump's life that they must have been talking about themselves. I don't have any logical choices left on such matters.

    Anyway, I'm sad you have this kind of problem in your life. The Power of Positive Thinking, The Art of The Deal, and many other books can help. Also, if you're jealous that he's rich, I'd get over that one, too. Gilded chairs don't look comfortable and he likes McDonald's food, which I'm sure you can afford.

  92. Kevin C. says:
    @Desiderius
    Pippin's about to save Faramir if you don't get back up there and make sure the guards follow your orders. Time's a wasting!

    So, this time it’s a comparison to Denethor. Better than the comparison to Grima Wormtongue I once got over at Jim’s. But very nerdy namecalling hardly constitutes evidence of a workable plan to defeat the Left, nor a counter-argument against the highlighting of the flaws that render the popular “plans” unworkable; ad hominem is a logical fallacy, you know.

    Read More
  93. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.
     
    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).

    I’m sure the troops will side with the people who hate them against their friends and family.

    Look at Kevin’s posting career for a laugh. This is his MO.

    Read More
  94. Okay back. That was fun.

    CNN currently melting down by all accounts. Great speech by President Trump.

    Blackpillers go away thx.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    CNN currently melting down by all accounts. Great speech by President Trump.
     
    Excellent. I went to bed early last night.
  95. @Kevin C.

    Trump could have begun building The Wall on Day 1, by invoking his powers as CINC and directing all available military engineering outfits to head down to the border and get busy.
     
    At which point said outfits suffer "unexpected delays", "supply chain problems" and various other "issues" as all the more Left-leaning folks in the command and logistics chains engage in delaying tactics, bothering-by-the-book, malicious compliance, and all the other foot-dragging techniques, everthing short of outright insubordination (and maybe even some of that), delaying until some Lefty federal judge can produce the requisite sophistry "explaining" how this is a violation of Posse Comitatus or separation of powers or whatever and get it shut down, while State Department apparatchiks write memos explaining how this sort of movement of military outifits is an unwise provocation to Mexico, and how the interests of Amercan Diplomacy require pulling them back, with leaks to the press who can then proclaim Trump a war-mongering hothead for failing to listen to these wise fellows.

    Inter arma, silent leges.

    Read More
  96. Kevin C. says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.
     
    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?

    Yes, but first, one must note that the most basic element of military training is conditioning obedience, right? I hear this same sort of things about the rank-and-file of our police forces. And yet, look at Berkeley, look at Charlottesville. And they don’t go through bootcamp, and only risk losing their job and pension for disobedience. In the military, you can still be shot for mutiny, right? How many do you really expect to not fall in line after the first hundred or so of the “disobedient” rank-and-file are executed pour encourager les autres? Add in all the women and minorities who’ve been added into the ranks. Plus, there’s always the possibility of FedGov calling on the UN or NATO for aid, said “aid” coming in the form of outside troops to be “embedded” into each unit to serve, like Soviet Commissars, as watchdogs for any sign of “political unreliability”.

    Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?

    And further, think of all the humiliations the Left has already subjected our men in uniform to, with nary a peep or even a resignation in protest in sight. If they haven’t decided our Left-wing elites are a domestic enemy of the Constitution by now, what makes you think they ever will?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?"

    That's certainly a valid take on things. But it doesn't cover a lot of other details. Namely it takes a while to spit out the kind of stuff you are talking about. Whoever gets the depots where the on hand inventory is kept will have a tremendous leg up for the first part of this affair - which is by far the most important.

    You also fail to consider that modern military practice (at least ours) depends on things that come from overseas (Asia mostly now for electronic thingies). And fuel. The production of fuel is a Red State thing. There is a vast pipeline network in this country (frankly this is an American exceptionalism, no one else has anything like it). A lot of the endpoints are in places like Seattle, Chicago, NYC. But the grid itself is mostly Red State.

    If Civil War broke out, Red State America could pretty easily cut off the power and gas supplies to virtually all of ... just call it "Blue Areas." The only power production they'd have would be what Nuke plants might remain in these areas, and whatever coal reserves the local plant happened to have.

    (As a side not, places like LA tend to have their power plants located far away now. Pollution is so prole, and if emissions happen in Utah, it doesn't count right?)

    You also have to consider the whole financial aspect of the whole thing. The US economy and economic system is a house of cards. I really don't think the Chines and others would extend credit to the neocons if a serious shooting war started here. Unless it was on terms that would make even a neocon turn pale and start shaking in his shoes.

    I could write a lot more about this. Really the natural roadblock to something like this occurring is the dependence of Red State America on Social Security, Veteran's Pensions, and the like. Not that that makes it totally impossible, but very few people would be willing to embrace the chaos and hardship that would ensue (but it will happen in Blue areas too, though it won't touch our magnificent elites).

    To me the ignition point is going to be when the financial crisis comes (when and exactly how this happens I don't know, but no country can survive this level of deficit spending forever). When they start to cut or eliminate entitlements, that's when I think Hell is gonna come to Frogtown.

    Just saying though, the ... enemy? That the right word? Well he is kind of messed up too. Totally dependent on an unstable financial and international system. Heck you cut off the internet and cell phones and they literally won't know what to do with themselves. (Yeah I know cell phones seem to work in the most misbegotten war zone. But trust me, I don't think Americans are God's gift to soldiering, but I truly believe they could identify and destroy the right infrastructure to essentially make it useless for a long time.

    If it actually got hot? Not so sure it is unwinnable. Lot depends on how many military units read the wind and decided what side they were on.
    , @Jack Hanson
    You've never served in an infantry unit, have you?
  97. Boethiuss says:
    @Tulip
    Trump showed it could be done (running on an economic nationalist platform).

    Trump is showing it can not be done (governing on an economic nationalist platform).

    There needs to be some serious de-cucking in the 2018 primaries if we are to save the Republic.

    Hopefully, Bannon gets the anti-cuck wedge issues in the hopper going into the primaries, and we can smoke out the cucks and replace them with real American patriots.

    There needs to be some serious de-cucking in the 2018 primaries if we are to save the Republic.

    You realize Hillary Clinton is not on the ballot in 2018, or likely any subsequent year, right? Without her, Trump is just another pol under 40%

    Read More
  98. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Good speech …but we need action.

    The problem is that Trump is not feared in D.C.

    He’s been a big pussycat from day one. Trump should’ve broken Mitch McConnell’s jaw on his first day in prison. Mitch is very unpopular nationally and in KY. Trump should savage him. Annihilate him. Then the bitch Ryan will fall in line but I would destroy Ryan also. Another unpopular politician.

    Bottom line is Trump is a fuckup as POTUS so far. You keep the promises to your base to maintain your poll numbers. From that position of strength you can operate. But instead Trump shivs the base every week and languishes with low poll numbers.

    It’s laughable that he can’t figure out that he needs to terrify the establishment in order to make it bend to his will. Until Trump makes them very, very afraid …it will be status quo ad infinitum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jill
    Could you please review this list and get back to us? Does it change your view? Most of what is on this list never gets reported.


    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6tr53e/real_trump_news_updated_081417/

    , @AM

    Trump should’ve broken Mitch McConnell’s jaw on his first day in prison. Mitch is very unpopular nationally and in KY. Trump should savage him. Annihilate him. Then the bitch Ryan will fall in line but I would destroy Ryan also. Another unpopular politician.
     
    This is highly effective behavior, especially when we have at least the veneer of a republic.
  99. LondonBob says:
    @Thomas
    The big questions tonight will be:

    1) Does he send any signals on the border?
    2) (Related) Does he indicate a pardon for Joe Arpaio?
    3) Does he endorse Kelli Ward (or otherwise signify support for a primary challenger to Jeff Flake)?

    Trump has already endorsed Kelli Ward.

    Arpaio will have his conviction overturned anyway.

    Read More
  100. Stacy235l says:
    @Jack Hanson
    "My fellow whites, the only allowable resistance is posting pithy comments on a niche blog."

    The Russians didn't try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it.

    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you're posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.

    Your paymasters are gonna be upset you’re posting when you should be walking around downtown Phoenix with your Nazi battle flag.

    What is a “Nazi battle flag”. I really don’t think I like having “Nazi” and battle flag put together like that.

    Read More
  101. BB753 says:
    @Kevin C.

    So I am afraid he’s really going to fail. What we all hoped for (drain the swamp, change things in a fundamental manner) isn’t occurring. Maybe its impossible.
     
    Not much "maybe" about it. No other candidate could have done much better. Whatever it says on paper, the real, permanent government doesn't answer to any temporary, merely-elected official, even a president. There is no "draining the swamp", because the swamp holds all power. Voting changes nothing. Protests accomplish nothing. And "2nd amendment solutions" are dangerous nonsense that misunderstands modern warfare; to the extent mass uprisings of armed civilians were ever a viable thing, that time is over, and rebellion impossible.

    The only way to drain the swamp is for Trump to go full Putin on the deep state and the Silicon Valley oligarchs. He should surround himself with young military brass, non-corrupt intelligence officers and eager young attorneys. And start taking down his enemies one by one. With congressmen and senators, the only way to have them obey Trump and not Romney, McCain or Ryan is to either bribe or blackbail them. Play dirty if necessary. Nobody ever won in politics by following the rules.

    Read More
  102. jill says:
    @Anonymous
    Good speech ...but we need action.

    The problem is that Trump is not feared in D.C.

    He's been a big pussycat from day one. Trump should've broken Mitch McConnell's jaw on his first day in prison. Mitch is very unpopular nationally and in KY. Trump should savage him. Annihilate him. Then the bitch Ryan will fall in line but I would destroy Ryan also. Another unpopular politician.

    Bottom line is Trump is a fuckup as POTUS so far. You keep the promises to your base to maintain your poll numbers. From that position of strength you can operate. But instead Trump shivs the base every week and languishes with low poll numbers.

    It's laughable that he can't figure out that he needs to terrify the establishment in order to make it bend to his will. Until Trump makes them very, very afraid ...it will be status quo ad infinitum.

    Could you please review this list and get back to us? Does it change your view? Most of what is on this list never gets reported.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6tr53e/real_trump_news_updated_081417/

    Read More
  103. AM says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Okay back. That was fun.

    CNN currently melting down by all accounts. Great speech by President Trump.

    Blackpillers go away thx.

    CNN currently melting down by all accounts. Great speech by President Trump.

    Excellent. I went to bed early last night.

    Read More
  104. AM says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.
     
    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?

    We would not even have close the military that we do have without the Deplorables. The brass has been infiltrated by the PC types, but there’s enough Deplorable generals around still to reverse the trend.

    Read More
  105. AM says:
    @Boethiuss

    Holding my breath. If he reneges on trade and immigration it will be worse than shooting someone on 5th Avenue.
     
    I'd be inhaling by now. Whatever it is you're hoping for, chances are it's not coming.

    Not even having to do with what Trump wants necessarily but more about what he's capable of. In football terms, Trump is like the offensive coordinator on game day. He sits in a press box with binoculars and a big posterboard full of numbers and plays. He picks out the one he likes, and tells the quarterback to run it.

    Unfortunately for us, in our world the President is the quarterback. It's not enough to make a decision, even the right one. You have to execute, and Trump can't. That's why he's being buffeted around by people who don't necessarily like him. He doesn't have the connections or the knowledge to execute what he wants, so he's basically left making speeches.

    Unfortunately for us, in our world the President is the quarterback. It’s not enough to make a decision, even the right one. You have to execute, and Trump can’t.

    I’m assuming you’re talking about you, and not the guy who was successful enough to multiply his fortunes in real estate development of all places.

    Cause from Day 1, #NeverTrump has talked about issues so disconnected from the barest facts about Donald Trump’s life that they must have been talking about themselves. I don’t have any logical choices left on such matters.

    Anyway, I’m sad you have this kind of problem in your life. The Power of Positive Thinking, The Art of The Deal, and many other books can help. Also, if you’re jealous that he’s rich, I’d get over that one, too. Gilded chairs don’t look comfortable and he likes McDonald’s food, which I’m sure you can afford.

    Read More
  106. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    Good speech ...but we need action.

    The problem is that Trump is not feared in D.C.

    He's been a big pussycat from day one. Trump should've broken Mitch McConnell's jaw on his first day in prison. Mitch is very unpopular nationally and in KY. Trump should savage him. Annihilate him. Then the bitch Ryan will fall in line but I would destroy Ryan also. Another unpopular politician.

    Bottom line is Trump is a fuckup as POTUS so far. You keep the promises to your base to maintain your poll numbers. From that position of strength you can operate. But instead Trump shivs the base every week and languishes with low poll numbers.

    It's laughable that he can't figure out that he needs to terrify the establishment in order to make it bend to his will. Until Trump makes them very, very afraid ...it will be status quo ad infinitum.

    Trump should’ve broken Mitch McConnell’s jaw on his first day in prison. Mitch is very unpopular nationally and in KY. Trump should savage him. Annihilate him. Then the bitch Ryan will fall in line but I would destroy Ryan also. Another unpopular politician.

    This is highly effective behavior, especially when we have at least the veneer of a republic.

    Read More
  107. Hunsdon says:
    @anonguy

    He has been the best President that we have had in my life time so far. He has to fight on all sides. There is concern that he is being steered into being just another cuck. I think everything that has gone majorly wrong so far is due to Congress which he doesnt control.
     
    I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, it has been Reagan for the takedown of the Soviet Union however much he failed on the domestic front. Unbiased historians in the future will agree despite the current agenda-driven dogma that asserts that this was a natural, inevitable phenomenon like, say, immigration or outsourcing.

    As bad as things may seem now to some, the world is a far, far better place than it was during the Cold War. We humans really did have the means and apparent willingness to literally destroy civilization in a flash over our differences. By the grace of God we didn't.

    Current concerns are comparatively trivial and slower moving. Fretting over dusty Confederate memorials, by both sides, is a luxury provided by not having to worry about nuclear holocaust.

    Have you overlooked the Russia kerfluffle? US Senators comparing the “Russian interference” in our sacred elections to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor? At least during the Cold War we thought seriously about the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

    Read More
  108. Hunsdon says:
    @anon
    Kev
    This fact remains regardless of who is arming the rebels :
    Assad the noble lion of the desert and the Syrian army , the Iranian army , the Russian army and the terrorist army of Hezbola combined have taken 5+ years to defeat a gang of drug addled goat boys and teenage retards from Europe. And still the conflict goes on. That is all.

    This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on a Unz.com article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Everything I said is factual but keep swooning over dreamy Vlad and his sidekick er sidepiece . What is your fav Vlad moment , shirtless hunting or picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?
  109. Hunsdon says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I doubt these problems would apply if the Deep State unleashed the troops fully against Deplorables engaged in “insurrection”.
     
    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home? Riflemen, pilots, tank drivers, and rear echelon units all have significant Deplorable makeup. Today’s brass may be selected for political correctness, but they still need the rank and file to field a force. Attempting to deploy them against a super pissed-off (and rather well armed) plurality of kin and countrymen may not work out so well for an overtly totalitarian Deep State.

    Here’s my past comment on the matter (#142).

    If Jim Mattis said he thought there was an unconstitutional coup being launched against the President, a ton of veterans would heed the call.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    If Jim Mattis said he thought there was an unconstitutional coup being launched against the President, a ton of veterans would heed the call.
     
    If one is ever in a developing sticky situation where one needs help/backup quickly and there are a fair amount of people about, never hurts to call out "Marines" as loudly as possible.

    Might be surprised at what may come out of the woodwork.
  110. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hunsdon
    This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on a Unz.com article.

    Everything I said is factual but keep swooning over dreamy Vlad and his sidekick er sidepiece . What is your fav Vlad moment , shirtless hunting or picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?
     
    Having neither seen the image you describe nor even verified that any such incident of the nature that you described even occurred, I will, for the moment, take your word for both and offer some thoughts on the matter.

    The behavior you describe certainly seems odd, at least by American standards and probably general Western ones as well. Likely even unsavory and suspicious. I will not deny that much. Absent being presented with compelling evidence, however, I am not ready to assume that it necessarily must amount-to evidence of depravity on the part of Mr. Putin. Perhaps there is a cultural difference at play here? Perhaps, in Russia, for an adult to extend such physical expressions of affection toward a child is not, at least in the case of a known, favorably viewed public figure, seen as scandalous or unsavory? How did the parents of the boy feel about Mr. Putin kissing their son in the manner described? Could it be that they perhaps welcomed it? That they view the Russian leader as a loving father figure to all of that country's children?

    I don't know. I do know, however, that the Russian Premier is one of the only world leaders that I know of to have demonstrated the courage and moral conviction to stand-up to what are some of the very worst, most insidious, most corrosive cultural and moral termites eating away at the very foundations of society. That, whatever else can be said about Vladimir Putin, is to his great and eternal credit. Russia is the only white nation I know of that has, by force of Law, protected their children from the scourge of "LGBTQ" indoctrination. Against the truly pernicious "LGBTQ" propaganda that children in more "enlightened" countries are subjected-to, merely being "smooched" or even slobbered over by Vladimir Putin would seem rather harmless by comparison.

    Incidentally, I have long wondered whether the aforementioned heretical defiance of sacred "LGBTQ" dogma is, in the eyes of the hysterical, Russia-bating, Russo-phobic usual suspects, the real sin of Putin and his Russia.

    Putin may still be plenty bad for any number of reasons. But as long we mind our own business and avoid meddling into his nation's affairs, I do not see that any of them need concern us.
  111. Read More
  112. Dissident says:
    @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Man it's like everyone here decided to kick their heroin habit just this morning. And the puking is kicking in.

    In the last 50 years how many national politicians gave a real shit about the real America? There was Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, notice a pattern with those two. Probably Ronald Reagan and I would say Donald Trump. Other than 2A issues the Right, as represented here for the most part, has lost hugely on every single issue that really matters.

    So Trump hasn't been able to defeat the world's billionaires, the media, academia, Hollywood, big law, big sports, big business, entrenched bureaucrats, the CIA, FBI, MIC, the R party, the D party, the Pope, other Western leaders in a few months. You are right, God what a loser he is.

    A dissenting view on Ronald Reagan:

    How Right Was Reagan?

    by Richard Gamble, The American Conservative, May 2009

    Selected excerpts:

    In short, it is hard in 2009 to point to any concrete evidence that the Reagan Revolution fundamentally altered the nation’s trajectory toward bloated, centralized, interventionist government. Conservatism in the 1980s made its peace with much of liberalism—if not with all of its legislative agenda, then at least with its means to power. Republicans and Democrats now argue over how big the bailouts should be or how long the troops should remain deployed, rarely about first principles.

    Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative.

    But some conservative dissidents have recently blamed Reagan for giving his benediction to the most culturally corrosive tendencies in the American character.

    Dissent about Reagan among conservative intellectuals goes back surprisingly far, back even to Reagan’s first term. Historian John Lukacs, writing in Outgrowing Democracy (published in 1984 and later reissued under the title A New Republic), found it necessary to put Reagan’s “conservatism” in quotation marks, calling it “lamentably shortsighted and shallow.”

    Conservatives ought to have enough confidence in their own principles to examine Reagan’s ambiguous legacy in light of those very tenets.

    Maybe the Reagan we think we remember is the very thing most likely to distract us from painful self-examination and serious reckoning with who we are as a people and how we got this way.

    Read More
  113. Sunbeam says:
    @Kevin C.

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?
     
    Yes, but first, one must note that the most basic element of military training is conditioning obedience, right? I hear this same sort of things about the rank-and-file of our police forces. And yet, look at Berkeley, look at Charlottesville. And they don't go through bootcamp, and only risk losing their job and pension for disobedience. In the military, you can still be shot for mutiny, right? How many do you really expect to not fall in line after the first hundred or so of the "disobedient" rank-and-file are executed pour encourager les autres? Add in all the women and minorities who've been added into the ranks. Plus, there's always the possibility of FedGov calling on the UN or NATO for aid, said "aid" coming in the form of outside troops to be "embedded" into each unit to serve, like Soviet Commissars, as watchdogs for any sign of "political unreliability".

    Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?

    And further, think of all the humiliations the Left has already subjected our men in uniform to, with nary a peep or even a resignation in protest in sight. If they haven't decided our Left-wing elites are a domestic enemy of the Constitution by now, what makes you think they ever will?

    “Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?”

    That’s certainly a valid take on things. But it doesn’t cover a lot of other details. Namely it takes a while to spit out the kind of stuff you are talking about. Whoever gets the depots where the on hand inventory is kept will have a tremendous leg up for the first part of this affair – which is by far the most important.

    You also fail to consider that modern military practice (at least ours) depends on things that come from overseas (Asia mostly now for electronic thingies). And fuel. The production of fuel is a Red State thing. There is a vast pipeline network in this country (frankly this is an American exceptionalism, no one else has anything like it). A lot of the endpoints are in places like Seattle, Chicago, NYC. But the grid itself is mostly Red State.

    If Civil War broke out, Red State America could pretty easily cut off the power and gas supplies to virtually all of … just call it “Blue Areas.” The only power production they’d have would be what Nuke plants might remain in these areas, and whatever coal reserves the local plant happened to have.

    (As a side not, places like LA tend to have their power plants located far away now. Pollution is so prole, and if emissions happen in Utah, it doesn’t count right?)

    You also have to consider the whole financial aspect of the whole thing. The US economy and economic system is a house of cards. I really don’t think the Chines and others would extend credit to the neocons if a serious shooting war started here. Unless it was on terms that would make even a neocon turn pale and start shaking in his shoes.

    I could write a lot more about this. Really the natural roadblock to something like this occurring is the dependence of Red State America on Social Security, Veteran’s Pensions, and the like. Not that that makes it totally impossible, but very few people would be willing to embrace the chaos and hardship that would ensue (but it will happen in Blue areas too, though it won’t touch our magnificent elites).

    To me the ignition point is going to be when the financial crisis comes (when and exactly how this happens I don’t know, but no country can survive this level of deficit spending forever). When they start to cut or eliminate entitlements, that’s when I think Hell is gonna come to Frogtown.

    Just saying though, the … enemy? That the right word? Well he is kind of messed up too. Totally dependent on an unstable financial and international system. Heck you cut off the internet and cell phones and they literally won’t know what to do with themselves. (Yeah I know cell phones seem to work in the most misbegotten war zone. But trust me, I don’t think Americans are God’s gift to soldiering, but I truly believe they could identify and destroy the right infrastructure to essentially make it useless for a long time.

    If it actually got hot? Not so sure it is unwinnable. Lot depends on how many military units read the wind and decided what side they were on.

    Read More
  114. @Whiskey
    Trump is cucking out. He has an ultraliberal daughter. But I repeat myself. A daughter is enough to cuck a man, particularly if he tries to appease Daddy's little Princess. Who 99 times out of a 100 will have nothing but HATE HATE HATE for every White man not Daddy or Uber Alpha or her fabulous gay hairdresser or favorite fashion designer.

    OF COURSE HE'S CUCKING. Ivanka is his daughter. What else did you expect?

    But even if he did not cuck he'd still face defeat. REAL power is held by the bureaucracy, oligarchs who own the media, internet giants, and massive corporations. REAL power is held by permanent deep state intelligence agents who are ultra cucked themselves, and Hollywood, and lifetime Senators.

    WE may have elected Trump but Senators for Life McCain, Graham, and McConnell did most assuredly not assent. Neither did Warren Buffett, Joss Whedon, [his many bimbos], Nancy Pelosi (Congress critter for life), Maxine Waters, or 99.99% of the business, military, and government leadership. To say nothing of the NAACP, $LPC, or Stephen Colbert.

    We have a semi-hereditary oligarchy, not a democracy, and that's been the case for forty years on at least, maybe longer. Trump is about five months from being removed if that because the oligarchy won't tolerate him much longer; and they have PLANS FOR US.

    Which amounts to essentially mass Third World immavasion, legal serfdom and slavery for White males lacking status/fame/money; and President Maxine Waters or some such replacing Trump and confiscating most of the deplorable's property and money to give to ... wealthy oligarchs with a trickle going to Blacks and Hispancis. See Zimbabwe. Of course the oligarchs like Whedon will get eaten alive eventually by Black Africans and Muslims ... but the thing is they're stupid.

    Loot at Joss Whedon. The man writes entertainment in movies and TV aimed mostly at women; and can't figure out that the smart move is to either not ball your bimbo actresses left and right while explaining to your Wife that "I'm a feminist." Since she'll eventually figure it out and get you back, but good -- that's human nature. Or go for the bimbo-tastic hookups by divorcing your wife quickly once it becomes obvious you've succeeded enough that your casting power overcomes your giant potato head. Get the divorce over quickly before bimbo-ing it up and face no downsides save money.

    But its a stupid move in the extreme to pose as both a happily married man and a "feminist" while screwing every hot young actress, (fans, allegedly according to the ex) and assistants as the probability that some woman is going to be VERY unhappy and retaliate is 100%. No one cares about Michael Bay doing stuff like that because he doesn't pretend to be anything he's not. He has very little downside -- but Bay stands out as a giant in Hollywood being able to add 2 and 2 and get four all day long.

    A smart oligarchy would work with Trump to work out a deal and he seems to have expected that; instead its "Resistance" all the way in prep for replacing him and punishing us Deplorables.

    Whiskey when have you ever been right.

    Read More
  115. @Sunbeam
    "The Russians didn’t try hard enough which was why they lost. Uh huh uh huh. Got it."

    Eh, I don't really recognize your handle, so you might be one of the posters like Truth or that Tiny guy.

    But depending on how you look at things, he's right.

    See the firepower is there, without even using nukes. You just have to be willing to do things that were commonly accepted practice virtually everywhere until relatively recently.

    So Afghanistan? Genghis Khan would have exterminated the Pashtuns. If you do not give two f#$cks which most people didn't until sometime in the last century there are all kinds of things you can do.

    Start at the Pakistan border and advance inland - killing anything human you see. Man, woman, child, it dies. Burn the buildings, sow the fields with salt (rhetorically, really what you are doing is destroying wells, food reserves, fields, etc).

    "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."

    Doesn't work if you get rid of the sea.

    Not that I expect this to happen. But unlike taking North Korea or Iran this is eminently doable. Military targets, even irregular ones, tend to pick up tricks and hide in caves. Civilian villages (in the end they are the ones who feed and support all military forces) don't have that ability.

    If you have the stones to throw MOABS at villages and fully intend to kill as many people as possible, well there isn't much the Afghanis can do about it. And that IS different from what the Russians did to Grozny. The Great Khan was harder than Stalin, Putin, or any of the rest ever will be.

    Thing is, I don't want to kill Afghan one. I want this country to leave that place, never go back, and absolutely not bring in any Muslims of any sort.

    But just thinking things out... if for some reason Trump wanted to play it this way, what stops it? Assuming he could survive the domestic problems it would create. In the end China wouldn't care. India would give us an unofficial high five. Europe doesn't matter at all really.

    Nasty world though. Because a country resurrecting the old ways is going to make it just that much easier for another to do the same. And there are lots of problematic populations in thew world that whatever powers that be would like to see disappear, either as victims or refugees.

    I don’t recognize your handle, so I assume you’re another eeyore blackpiller who looks for any reason to declare defeat.

    Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan.

    “MAN JUST NUKE EM AND COMMIT ATROCITIES CAUSE WE ORDER THE SOLDIERS TO GAME OVER”.

    It doesn’t work that way with foreigners, nor does it work that way with the US of A.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan."

    You may have done that, but apparently you didn't learn anything from being in the military, being a contractor, or being in Afghanistan (whichever category fit you).

    The weapons are there now if you are willing to use them on an enemy that can't stop you and can't really fight back except via guerrilla warfare or terrorism. You don't have to use chemical weapons, let alone nukes.

    Just kill one virtually defenseless village after another. Destroy any irrigation canals, burn any fields, destroy any grain or food reserves. Don't bother to patrol the area, figure the resistance will starve after they eat their stores. You don't even really want to fight anyone. You want to utterly destroy a population for all time.

    Classically you would have the replacements chomping at the bit, ready to start farming and bringing up the next generation. That won't be possible in this situation. And of course someone, maybe more troublesome will fill the hole left, they always do. Just give it a century.

    You are free to call it autism if you wish, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has been done time and again in history. And it's possible here.

    But:

    It's not worth it. Plus as I said doing something like this lets the genie out of the bottle. Near as I can tell the last Europeans to do anything so ruthless were the Brits in Malaysia, and they mainly used proxies to do the dirty work. Plus they were really only after the Chinese population, so things were a little limited. And it was over 50 years ago, with a different Western world, and conducted in hot, remote, section of the world that media really didn't want to cover.
  116. @Kevin C.

    You do realize “the troops” are often themselves Deplorables, and are close with Deplorable family and friends back home?
     
    Yes, but first, one must note that the most basic element of military training is conditioning obedience, right? I hear this same sort of things about the rank-and-file of our police forces. And yet, look at Berkeley, look at Charlottesville. And they don't go through bootcamp, and only risk losing their job and pension for disobedience. In the military, you can still be shot for mutiny, right? How many do you really expect to not fall in line after the first hundred or so of the "disobedient" rank-and-file are executed pour encourager les autres? Add in all the women and minorities who've been added into the ranks. Plus, there's always the possibility of FedGov calling on the UN or NATO for aid, said "aid" coming in the form of outside troops to be "embedded" into each unit to serve, like Soviet Commissars, as watchdogs for any sign of "political unreliability".

    Second, even if a portion of the Armed Forces do break away, read anything on the importance of complex logistic chains to modern, technologically-intensive warfare. Which side will have engineers and replacement parts when those tanks or multi-million-dollar planes break down, as they do? If one side can readily repair their machines and resupply their ammo, and the other side cannot, who wins? And those logistic chains comes down, to a great degree, to which side the military contractors, the Lockheed-Martins and Northrop-Grummonds, fall on. And, given that these companies cannot afford their own products, and only the deep pockets of FedGov can afford their bills, where do you think that will be?

    And further, think of all the humiliations the Left has already subjected our men in uniform to, with nary a peep or even a resignation in protest in sight. If they haven't decided our Left-wing elites are a domestic enemy of the Constitution by now, what makes you think they ever will?

    You’ve never served in an infantry unit, have you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    “MAN JUST NUKE EM AND COMMIT ATROCITIES CAUSE WE ORDER THE SOLDIERS TO GAME OVER”.
     
    It's never just stick. It's always carrot and stick. The stick is physical annihilation of rebellious tribes. The carrot is development aid for the cooperative. The current policy is carrots for our allies and a small stick for our enemies. A big stick would be the physical destruction of villages in the vicinity of Taliban attacks, once it is determined that those villages are supporters, i.e. significant numbers of Taliban casualties are from those villages.

    There's no magic here. Coercion works, if applied on a large enough scale, and if the locals have no way of countering your material superiority. The Taliban would have been eliminated long ago, if we had adopted their methods. They subdued the (mostly-Shia) Hazaras via large scale massacre and were about to do that to the Tajiks, when al Qaeda pulled off 9/11. If we pushed the Pashtun population of Afghanistan into Pakistan, would there even be an Afghan Taliban? Is it simply a coincidence that the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban has coincided with the repatriation of Pashtun refugees in Pakistan back to Afghanistan?
  117. Corn says:
    @Kevin C.
    Again, how much were foreign powers propping up those "insurgents"? Who would be providing comparable arms, training, and funds to Deplorable guerrillas?

    Before he deleted his Twitter the blogger 28Sherman tweeted something to the effect: “Imagine China funding or supplying an armed insurrection in Appalachia.”

    Read More
  118. Dissident says:
    @anon
    Everything I said is factual but keep swooning over dreamy Vlad and his sidekick er sidepiece . What is your fav Vlad moment , shirtless hunting or picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?

    picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?

    Having neither seen the image you describe nor even verified that any such incident of the nature that you described even occurred, I will, for the moment, take your word for both and offer some thoughts on the matter.

    The behavior you describe certainly seems odd, at least by American standards and probably general Western ones as well. Likely even unsavory and suspicious. I will not deny that much. Absent being presented with compelling evidence, however, I am not ready to assume that it necessarily must amount-to evidence of depravity on the part of Mr. Putin. Perhaps there is a cultural difference at play here? Perhaps, in Russia, for an adult to extend such physical expressions of affection toward a child is not, at least in the case of a known, favorably viewed public figure, seen as scandalous or unsavory? How did the parents of the boy feel about Mr. Putin kissing their son in the manner described? Could it be that they perhaps welcomed it? That they view the Russian leader as a loving father figure to all of that country’s children?

    I don’t know. I do know, however, that the Russian Premier is one of the only world leaders that I know of to have demonstrated the courage and moral conviction to stand-up to what are some of the very worst, most insidious, most corrosive cultural and moral termites eating away at the very foundations of society. That, whatever else can be said about Vladimir Putin, is to his great and eternal credit. Russia is the only white nation I know of that has, by force of Law, protected their children from the scourge of “LGBTQ” indoctrination. Against the truly pernicious “LGBTQ” propaganda that children in more “enlightened” countries are subjected-to, merely being “smooched” or even slobbered over by Vladimir Putin would seem rather harmless by comparison.

    Incidentally, I have long wondered whether the aforementioned heretical defiance of sacred “LGBTQ” dogma is, in the eyes of the hysterical, Russia-bating, Russo-phobic usual suspects, the real sin of Putin and his Russia.

    Putin may still be plenty bad for any number of reasons. But as long we mind our own business and avoid meddling into his nation’s affairs, I do not see that any of them need concern us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    The incident did happen and it was pretty nondescript. You can find it on Youtube. Your analysis is correct. Of course, my favorite Putin moment is "Give me back my pen."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMlsbB33QSc
  119. Sunbeam says:
    @Jack Hanson
    I don't recognize your handle, so I assume you're another eeyore blackpiller who looks for any reason to declare defeat.

    Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan.

    "MAN JUST NUKE EM AND COMMIT ATROCITIES CAUSE WE ORDER THE SOLDIERS TO GAME OVER".

    It doesn't work that way with foreigners, nor does it work that way with the US of A.

    “Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan.”

    You may have done that, but apparently you didn’t learn anything from being in the military, being a contractor, or being in Afghanistan (whichever category fit you).

    The weapons are there now if you are willing to use them on an enemy that can’t stop you and can’t really fight back except via guerrilla warfare or terrorism. You don’t have to use chemical weapons, let alone nukes.

    Just kill one virtually defenseless village after another. Destroy any irrigation canals, burn any fields, destroy any grain or food reserves. Don’t bother to patrol the area, figure the resistance will starve after they eat their stores. You don’t even really want to fight anyone. You want to utterly destroy a population for all time.

    Classically you would have the replacements chomping at the bit, ready to start farming and bringing up the next generation. That won’t be possible in this situation. And of course someone, maybe more troublesome will fill the hole left, they always do. Just give it a century.

    You are free to call it autism if you wish, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has been done time and again in history. And it’s possible here.

    But:

    It’s not worth it. Plus as I said doing something like this lets the genie out of the bottle. Near as I can tell the last Europeans to do anything so ruthless were the Brits in Malaysia, and they mainly used proxies to do the dirty work. Plus they were really only after the Chinese population, so things were a little limited. And it was over 50 years ago, with a different Western world, and conducted in hot, remote, section of the world that media really didn’t want to cover.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Again, your analysis is basically "NUKE EM ALL" followed by "But that's not going to happen.,

    Always good to hear from the sophists.
  120. @anonymous
    The irony of such assistance to these would-be guerillas in the USA is that such assistance will be facilitated by the extremely lax and porous border controls that have been put into place by the guerillas' opponents. The very open borders the elites have demanded will come back to bite them by making such assistance that much more possible.

    So delicious it should be fattening, right?

    Read More
  121. @Dissident

    picking up a 5 year old Russian boy , lifting his shirt and giving a prolonged smooch to said boys tummy ?
     
    Having neither seen the image you describe nor even verified that any such incident of the nature that you described even occurred, I will, for the moment, take your word for both and offer some thoughts on the matter.

    The behavior you describe certainly seems odd, at least by American standards and probably general Western ones as well. Likely even unsavory and suspicious. I will not deny that much. Absent being presented with compelling evidence, however, I am not ready to assume that it necessarily must amount-to evidence of depravity on the part of Mr. Putin. Perhaps there is a cultural difference at play here? Perhaps, in Russia, for an adult to extend such physical expressions of affection toward a child is not, at least in the case of a known, favorably viewed public figure, seen as scandalous or unsavory? How did the parents of the boy feel about Mr. Putin kissing their son in the manner described? Could it be that they perhaps welcomed it? That they view the Russian leader as a loving father figure to all of that country's children?

    I don't know. I do know, however, that the Russian Premier is one of the only world leaders that I know of to have demonstrated the courage and moral conviction to stand-up to what are some of the very worst, most insidious, most corrosive cultural and moral termites eating away at the very foundations of society. That, whatever else can be said about Vladimir Putin, is to his great and eternal credit. Russia is the only white nation I know of that has, by force of Law, protected their children from the scourge of "LGBTQ" indoctrination. Against the truly pernicious "LGBTQ" propaganda that children in more "enlightened" countries are subjected-to, merely being "smooched" or even slobbered over by Vladimir Putin would seem rather harmless by comparison.

    Incidentally, I have long wondered whether the aforementioned heretical defiance of sacred "LGBTQ" dogma is, in the eyes of the hysterical, Russia-bating, Russo-phobic usual suspects, the real sin of Putin and his Russia.

    Putin may still be plenty bad for any number of reasons. But as long we mind our own business and avoid meddling into his nation's affairs, I do not see that any of them need concern us.

    The incident did happen and it was pretty nondescript. You can find it on Youtube. Your analysis is correct. Of course, my favorite Putin moment is “Give me back my pen.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Thank you.

    Exploiting pedo-hysteria seems like a particularly cheap, hackneyed attack.

  122. @Sunbeam
    "Let me lay it out for you as someone who went to Afghanistan and saw where nothing grew cause the Russians used chemical weapons: your idiocy (bordering on autism) is typical of someone who has no idea how war works, let alone Afghanistan."

    You may have done that, but apparently you didn't learn anything from being in the military, being a contractor, or being in Afghanistan (whichever category fit you).

    The weapons are there now if you are willing to use them on an enemy that can't stop you and can't really fight back except via guerrilla warfare or terrorism. You don't have to use chemical weapons, let alone nukes.

    Just kill one virtually defenseless village after another. Destroy any irrigation canals, burn any fields, destroy any grain or food reserves. Don't bother to patrol the area, figure the resistance will starve after they eat their stores. You don't even really want to fight anyone. You want to utterly destroy a population for all time.

    Classically you would have the replacements chomping at the bit, ready to start farming and bringing up the next generation. That won't be possible in this situation. And of course someone, maybe more troublesome will fill the hole left, they always do. Just give it a century.

    You are free to call it autism if you wish, but this is exactly the kind of thing that has been done time and again in history. And it's possible here.

    But:

    It's not worth it. Plus as I said doing something like this lets the genie out of the bottle. Near as I can tell the last Europeans to do anything so ruthless were the Brits in Malaysia, and they mainly used proxies to do the dirty work. Plus they were really only after the Chinese population, so things were a little limited. And it was over 50 years ago, with a different Western world, and conducted in hot, remote, section of the world that media really didn't want to cover.

    Again, your analysis is basically “NUKE EM ALL” followed by “But that’s not going to happen.,

    Always good to hear from the sophists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    No my analysis is exactly what it says on the label.

    What I'm saying is that:

    1) You really could kill them all. If you were a soldier then you know what FAE and daisycutters can do.

    2) Maybe you are saying something and I'm not getting the irony with the "Nuke Em All" thing. I don't think anyone wants to see nuclear weapons used, ever. That is a rational thing. But I can point to any number of times in history where whole groups of people were exterminated. That too is rational.

    3) You seem to think I'm in favor of genocide. Nope. The Pashtuns can cornhole little boys and become ever more retarded forever as far as I'm concerned.

    But they need to stay in their own little hellhole for all eternity. And the only intelligent thing to do is to utterly bar them and anyone like them from ever having entrance to your country for any reason.
  123. Dissident says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    The incident did happen and it was pretty nondescript. You can find it on Youtube. Your analysis is correct. Of course, my favorite Putin moment is "Give me back my pen."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMlsbB33QSc

    Thank you.

    Exploiting pedo-hysteria seems like a particularly cheap, hackneyed attack.

    Read More
  124. Sunbeam says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Again, your analysis is basically "NUKE EM ALL" followed by "But that's not going to happen.,

    Always good to hear from the sophists.

    No my analysis is exactly what it says on the label.

    What I’m saying is that:

    1) You really could kill them all. If you were a soldier then you know what FAE and daisycutters can do.

    2) Maybe you are saying something and I’m not getting the irony with the “Nuke Em All” thing. I don’t think anyone wants to see nuclear weapons used, ever. That is a rational thing. But I can point to any number of times in history where whole groups of people were exterminated. That too is rational.

    3) You seem to think I’m in favor of genocide. Nope. The Pashtuns can cornhole little boys and become ever more retarded forever as far as I’m concerned.

    But they need to stay in their own little hellhole for all eternity. And the only intelligent thing to do is to utterly bar them and anyone like them from ever having entrance to your country for any reason.

    Read More
  125. anonguy says:
    @Hunsdon
    If Jim Mattis said he thought there was an unconstitutional coup being launched against the President, a ton of veterans would heed the call.

    If Jim Mattis said he thought there was an unconstitutional coup being launched against the President, a ton of veterans would heed the call.

    If one is ever in a developing sticky situation where one needs help/backup quickly and there are a fair amount of people about, never hurts to call out “Marines” as loudly as possible.

    Might be surprised at what may come out of the woodwork.

    Read More
  126. @Jack Hanson
    You've never served in an infantry unit, have you?

    “MAN JUST NUKE EM AND COMMIT ATROCITIES CAUSE WE ORDER THE SOLDIERS TO GAME OVER”.

    It’s never just stick. It’s always carrot and stick. The stick is physical annihilation of rebellious tribes. The carrot is development aid for the cooperative. The current policy is carrots for our allies and a small stick for our enemies. A big stick would be the physical destruction of villages in the vicinity of Taliban attacks, once it is determined that those villages are supporters, i.e. significant numbers of Taliban casualties are from those villages.

    There’s no magic here. Coercion works, if applied on a large enough scale, and if the locals have no way of countering your material superiority. The Taliban would have been eliminated long ago, if we had adopted their methods. They subdued the (mostly-Shia) Hazaras via large scale massacre and were about to do that to the Tajiks, when al Qaeda pulled off 9/11. If we pushed the Pashtun population of Afghanistan into Pakistan, would there even be an Afghan Taliban? Is it simply a coincidence that the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban has coincided with the repatriation of Pashtun refugees in Pakistan back to Afghanistan?

    Read More
  127. Kevin C. says:
    @Kevin C.
    And I'm sure you could have said the same thing about Roberts back when he first got on SCOTUS. The Leftward drift of Rightwing appointees to SCOTUS is well-documented and long-established.
    One might start with these:
    Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older
    The Supreme Court is moving left. Here’s why.
    Could Neil Gorsuch Make the Supreme Court Move Left?

    To follow up, look at how the military has responded to Trump’s order to get rid of the trannies:

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford stated after Trump’s trio of tweets that “there will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of Defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance.” Mattis, who had maintained the policy of allowing existing transgender service members to serve openly but had recently extended the review period to study policy for admitting new transgender service members, was on vacation when Trump issued the tweets.

    Today in a statement, Defense Secretary James Mattis said he “will develop a study and implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law.”

    “extended the review period to study policy”; “develop a study and implementation plan”. So Trump orders it of the military, and it’s done on “day one”?

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored