40 thoughts on “A Great Disturbance in the Farce …

  1. Sorry, but the progs only *believe* they are “calculating and exact”. They are, in fact, delusional and impulsive, driven by their fantasies and paranoia, with a worldview as fanatical as any crazy-eyed jihadi. Their religion is Marxism, their demons are whites, males, and especially white males — with a special hatreds of Christianity, free association, and reason.

    • No. I meant four.

      It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party evolves through the mid term elections and to see how things play out in the various states.

      I’m sure there will be interesting things after 2020, but that’s farther than I can foresee for now.

      • Oh, I know; funny thing is, I’m not a fan. It’s just that much like the Tasmanian Devil of Warner Brother’s fame; I really enjoy watching him turn DC on its ear.
        Let’s just call him a force of nature. After all, things got to a point where even God had to just flush the whole thing and start over. (Gen. 7:12)

    • A movement that values winning might win, but, a movement that values losing is apt to lose. In this last election, The National Review valued losing. I can’t write how disgraceful that was. Their behavior represented nothing less than a fundamental betrayal of the people they asked to lead. The Evan McMullin fiasco was even worse. That was a calculated effort to elect HIllary Clinton. When the de facto candidate of The National Review is Hillary Clinton you know that there is something wrong in conservative-land.

      That made two successive open races in which the National Review has thrown in with the Democrats. In 2008 its publisher endorsed Barack Obama, as did its assistant editor. I have to query how many strikes ought The National Review be granted before they are called, “Out?” Conservatives are only going to win when we value winning; when we aspire to win; when we plan to win; and, when we act to win.

      The Left at least values winning. They have a plan: to paint Donald J. Trump as a latter day Hitler so as to create an atmosphere where any means is justified to pursue the ends of stopping Trump. Already, we have seen public threats of assassination; leftist psychiatrists diagnosing Donald J. Trump with mental illnesses; calls for impeachment absent any evidence of high crime; the politicization of the NSA, CIA to further the politics of personal destruction; and, the those same politics of personal destruction aimed at the children of Donald Trump, and folks who supported him. I have yet to see any meaningful opposition. Sitting back and seeing how the next four years play out is giving the left a free shot. Nor, would The National Review have any moral authority to oppose those tactics inasmuch as its plan was to use the politics of personal destruction to purge those who supported Donald Trump.

      Unless we witness both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer pass on in the next couple of years, the stakes for the 2020 election will be pretty much the same as in 2020. Either, you want the Supreme Court, or you don’t. Either you want Roe repealed, or you don’t. Either, you want gun rights affirmed, or you don’t. The left really has a strong preference on which it is acting. Those who don’t really act on their preference are apt to lose to those who take a stand.

      The National Review has placed itself on the ash heap of history. At this point, any instance in which they happen to be right ought to be considered accidental [a stopped clock is right twice a day,] or evidence that the interests of the right and left happen to overlap on that particular issue. The National Review might want to pretend that the recent past did not happen and continue to posture as if it is providing leadership to the conservative movement, but, that doesn’t mean anyone else ought to be taken in by their ruse. The bottom line is that they threw in with the left at critical time in the struggle between the right and the left.

      • I used to read NR. I used to hit The Corner a couple times each day, at least. When they declared themselves opposed to the R candidate, they ended me ever giving them another click. I know “my” fraction of their ad revenue is infinitesimal, but they don’t deserve even that.

      • There are multiple people online and on air that I used to respect. But when they fell to worshiping that evil and disastrous Donald Trump, I realized they were not as principled and honorable as I once thought they were. I no longer respect those people.

        People who demand that a refusal to vote for Trump was an effort to get the evil and disastrous Hillary Clinton elected are themselves unprincipled and dishonorable people deserving of zero respect.

        • I’m confused; while I appreciate that it’s inappropriate to conflate principled abstinence with collusion, I would daresay that pragmatism is neither unprincipled nor dishonorable.

          It borders on virtue signalling.

        • First of all, I have to object to your false alternative that either you can act on principle, or you can support Donald Trump. You can, and, I did cast a principled vote for Donald Trump. I cast a pro-life vote. I cast a principled vote against neo-con warmongering. I cast a principled vote that regarding immigration we are a nation of law. I cast a principled vote against NAFTA.

          Those who did not act on principle were self-described “conservatives” who opposed Donald Trump not by making a case for the benefits for dialing “1” for English, the case for relocating factories to Mexico, China, etc. the case for a third decade of no-win wars in the Middle-East, etc., but, instead, engaged in the politics of character assassination.

          Second, I have to note that a “refusal to vote” is not the same thing as publicly advocating people other than themselves not vote for Donald Trump, running a rump candidate against Donald Trump, or acting as a “Republicans for Hillary” committee by systematically trashing the Republican candidate. Fact is that if The National Review just sat on its hands, that would have in itself forfeited its right to ever claim leadership of the conservative or Republican movement. What The National Review did was orders of magnitude worse. Mine is a principled opposition to betrayal.

          • I publicly advocated people not vote for the PRO-CHOICE Donald Effing Trump and loudly declared if the india delta ten tangos chose him in the Primary, which was the most important Primary in the history of this nation, I would not ever vote for him, period. They did, and it immediately became the least important General election of the past 90 years. The choice was to vote for a corrupt lying Leftist scumbag or vote for THE OTHER corrupt lying Leftist scumbag. Screw that.

          • Your contention that only voting as you did can be principled remains as asinine as it ever was. It’s not a good look.

          • John Hitchcock,

            I thought that too. However, Trump is delivering on his promises. It’s amazing for me to see, and I’ve reassessed my opinion on my last choice in the GOP primary. We’d be lucky to get these cabinet officials with any GOP candidate, and Gorsuch was basically worth the vote.

          • Pablo wishes to argue against his own strawman by claiming that I only believe that one can be principled by voting as I did. First, he seemed to have missed the fact that that was criticism of another poster’s claims about acting on principle. I answered by noting I have principles upon which I, too, acted. Second, Pablo’s claim is simply divorced from reality. I have no doubt that Marxist have principles, and, act upon them. I merely think Marxists are both wrong and evil.

          • Hmmmm….

            Those who did not act on principle were self-described “conservatives” who opposed Donald Trump not by making a case for the benefits for dialing “1” for English, the case for relocating factories to Mexico, China, etc. the case for a third decade of no-win wars in the Middle-East, etc., but, instead, engaged in the politics of character assassination.

            Yeah. I’m not buying it.

            Now for some character assassination:

          • Well, Pablo, if you aren’t “buying” my argument you are simply wrong. When the brain trust at The National Review gathered to stop Donald Trump’s momentum, instead of formulating a principled, conservative case against him, it decided to instead attack Donald Trump for not really meaning his own words, or intending to keep his campaign promises. That is the folks who were often considered the founders of the #nevertrump movement were unprincipled actors pretty much from the get-go. You can say that arguing someone does mean what he says, or intends to keep his campaign promises isn’t “character assassination,” but, I would submit it is purely character assassination. You yourself engage in the tactics of personal destruction when you spread a British tabloid story that was even below the standards of the American press intent on destroying Donald Trump a story that same British tabloid press later retracted as “proven false.”

          • The conservative case against Trump is simple. He’s not a conservative, he’s never been a conservative and he’s never going to be a conservative.

            If you have a problem with that, I’d suggest taking it up with John Barron.

          • And the conservative case for Trump is: he is acting far more conservatively than Hilary Clinton would in his place. I don’t care if Trump is a true believer in conservative principles as defined by the establishment Rinocracy that rode his coat-tails to a majority in the Senate. I do care what he DOES. He has nominated Neil Gorsuch to the USSC. Would you rather have Merrick Garland or whatever liberal toady Clinton would have nominated? Would you prefer another Holder or Lynch to Jeff Sessionas as AG? You want a Michael Mann or something over Scott Pruitt. Would you rather Hilary’s choice over James Mattis at Defense?

            You’d rather obsess over things Trump said when he was currying favor for business reasons, than what he has actually done in office? Why? Why do you think idle words Trump deeds?

            Yeah, pun entirely intended. Deal with it.

          • I’m finding the Trump administration wildly entertaining and the leftist meltdowns are glorious. I’m also very happy with a number of decisions, not so happy with others.

            That said, this is a re-litigation of the primary/general, because Bob really seems to dig that. We could have done much, much better than Trump. But we’re an Idiocracy now, so let’s enjoy the ride.

          • The conservative case against The National Review, and #nevertrumpers is simply that they are more of the Washington Generals, token opposition, scripted to lose, and totally comfortable with losing, than fighters. If you want to conservative movement to achieve something you have to value winning, not losing.

          • Pablo, after the second successive open Presidential election where The National Review threw in with the Democrats I do want accountability. After Trump won the GOP nomination, many so-called #nevertrumpers demanded that there be accountability after November. Their notion of accountability was the personal and political destruction of anyone who supported Donald Trump. They, themselves, indicated that it would be a dirty, nasty purge. I, too, want accountability. I merely want those who imagined a world for others being subjected to that very world themselves. Karma is a bit of a bitch.

          • And, Pablo, the choice the electorate made to stop turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, the choice to rethink trade agreements that have lead to the deindustrialization of America, the decision to rethink no-win wars that have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollar, and, decision to take on the forces of political correctness rather than to appease them are some of the wisest choices the electorate has taken since Reagan.

          • Pablo, after the second successive open Presidential election where The National Review threw in with the Democrats I do want accountability.

            Was there a National Review endorsement of Hillary that I missed? Do you realize that you’re seeking “accountability” from a magazine by bitching about it in the comments of an unrelated blog?

          • I suppose it’s futile to point out to you that the Daily Beast is not the National review or that Christopher Buckley does not work for the National Review, and only ever worked there for a few months. Further, a dude who was an editor 16 years prior does not represent the editorial viewpoint of his long ago former employer. in related news. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama does not represent Ronald Reagan’s view of the matter.

            Facts are not your forte, which makes for an excellent Trumpkin.

          • Pablo wrote,

            “I suppose it’s futile to point out to you that the Daily Beast is not the National review or that Christopher Buckley does not work for the National Review, and only ever worked there for a few months. Further, a dude who was an editor 16 years prior does not represent the editorial viewpoint of his long ago former employer. in related news. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama does not represent Ronald Reagan’s view of the matter.

            “Facts are not your forte, which makes for an excellent Trumpkin.”

            1) So, you agree that Christopher Buckley was in fact an assistant editor of The National Review at the time he endorsed Barack Obama. I, suppose, you also concede that he the son of the founder.

            2) For someone who wishes to chide me about “facts are not your forte” I would have to respond that reading doesn’t appear to be one of yours. The fact is that the man in question was publisher, not editor, of The National Review for about four years. Publishers do things like hire and fire which editors by-and-large don’t which gives them great influence on the direction of the organization. When the person doing the hiring and firing endorsed Barack Obama, then, my point is that it not so odd that the magazine he shaped had an assistant editor who endorsed Barack Obama. It just indicates that his stint as publisher had consequences. Those consequences just weren’t good for conservatives.

        • There, it is! My exact point. The National Review threw in with Hillary. That is a fact as clear as day. Every poster here knows exactly what the NR did, and, what you did. You can try to switch the conversation all you want to what they didn’t do, but, the reality is the real issue is what they did do.

          When the NR is cited at this website, it is entirely appropriate to note that it is discredited organization.

          • BigSkyBob, whenever you open your mouth, it is entirely appropriate to note that you are absolutely insane; thus, your opinions are absolutely discredited and worthless.

          • Yeah…I think I recall NR generally supporting Romney, if not with wild enthusiasm.

            So far, Trump is governing far more conservatively than either Bush did. Admittedly, not the highest of hurdles. He’s on track to govern perhaps as conservatively as Reagan, which is the highest hurdle available in living memory.

          • Every poster here is not aware of that, and you didn’t answer my question. Give us a link to the Hillary endorsement.

            Your exact point is bullcrap.

          • This is going to be fun!

            So as to not miss any of the flavor of his remarks I will quote John Hitchcock
            verbatim:

            “BigSkyBob, whenever you open your mouth, it is entirely appropriate to note that you are absolutely insane; thus, your opinions are absolutely discredited and worthless.”

            Wow! I would simply have to note exactly what expertise you have to diagnosing mental illness? But, before doing so, I would have to ask what exactly is the difference between someone who is “a little insane,” “somewhat insane,” “insane,” and “absolutely insane?” I always thought “kinda insane” made as much a sense as “kinda pregnant.” Pro tip: when you try to use authoritarian words to sound like an expert it would behoove you to use them appropriately.

            Then, I would have to question your understanding of logic. There are many perfectly sane people who hold opinions that are “discredited and worthless.” For instance, there are people who believe in astrology, yet, are otherwise completely rational, and quite sane. Similarly, there are people who are insane, yet, hold opinions that are held in high regard. I would note that Winston Churchill was bipolar, and, Charles Darwin was a nutter of some kind. Logicians note than any attempt to infer incorrectness from personal defect is the ad hominem fallacy.

            That’s about all you have to offer.

            Maybe I am crazy. Maybe I am a complete nutter. Maybe I howl at the moon when it is full. And, maybe I think I have been abducted by aliens who are presently controlling my thoughts with microwaves. Maybe, I am that crazy. And, maybe, I have kept a low enough profile not to be taken away be the relevant authorities. But, even if all that were true, I would note in my defense that I would still not be crazy enough to believe the self-serving shit dissed out by the nevertrump movement. One would have to off-their-rocker, bonkers to believe that when wants one of the two people in a race to lose, they are not preferring that the other candidate win. I have seen many members of the Left try to dance on the head of the pin to deny having to make a concession, but, it is an eye-opener to read members of self-described Right descend to their level. Pathetic.

            What is insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The National Review valued losing, not winning. When you are lead by people who value losing you are apt to lose. Losing is easy to achieve. If you want to win, you have to pick leaders who are both competent, and, want to win. Otherwise, it will be SSDE [same shit, different election] in 2020,2024, etc.

  2. Personally, having observed and lived through the late 60s and early 70s,I’m expecting a certain amount of real violence. What we’ve seen so far is both, I think, battle space preparation and recruitment. I look for real violence sometime late next summer or early fall. I urge you all to stay safe and protect yourself and loved ones.
    The response to the violence will probably determine how far it goes and how bad it gets.

    • It feels like we’re going to see that on this side of the pond as well. I’m wondering if there’s some pattern to these expressions of violent uprising, some sort of generational cycle that could be discerned if one looks hard enough.

      Everything feels so tense at the moment.

      • Possibly generational. We’ve had it here every 30 years or so back to at least the Civil War. I don’t know about before that. Although 1828-1832 was the Jacksonian shift, a revolution against a coastal elite.

  3. Speaking of farce, deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt, on the very day that the big Wikileaks-Obama CIA news is breaking about its exploitation of tech devices and false flag operations, appears to be advocating for police state tactics to control the purchases and health care decisions of Americans. He seems to demand public subsidies of health care so that people can buy iPhones instead of paying their bills like honorable folks do. It’s archived, so I won’t link to it.

    Once a commie, always a commie, I guess. Given his communist iconography on various books and blogs, and his advocacy for the repression of capitalism, I have to wonder if he is the one with Russian contacts. They must be desperate.

  4. The #VeroBeachTroll and #SpecialLittleTeacup has suggested that everyone who voted for Trump be locked up and both the Republican Party and the electoral college be eliminated! How very soviet of him, especially since he belives Putin and Russia stole the election and that Trump is a Russian spy

    • Thankfully, we have a secret ballot. Still, he would jail people like me, which, I suppose is his real point.

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.07.17 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s