Tag Archives: 2016 election

deplorables-2

My Fellow Deplorables…

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Warren.

My Fellow Deplorables, I know it’s hard not to answer back to the flood of snipes and insults from the “tolerant & accepting” liberals, but please hold your fire. What they thought would be a yuge blue tidal wave left Democrats going into 2017 with less than than they’ve had in decades, and the 2018 mid term election map strongly indicates that they probably have not hit bottom yet. “Liking” and “sharing” insipid Facebook memes and walking around chanting while wearing childish pink kitty hats is all liberals have left. Let them think it will matter; let them pout and whine like the little sissy-bitches they are. None of it changes the end result. We still won.

My Fellow Deplorables, instead of counter arguing, encourage dead end theories that Hillary Clinton lost the election because of the Russians, the electoral college, the FBI, or whatever. Pretend to agree with the left! Affirm their delusions and denials! The last thing we want is for them to get a clue. The more liberals embrace straw man arguments, the more likely it is they will lose again and again and again.

deplorables

My Fellow Deplorables, offer no rebuttal to Hillary supporters when they say Donald Trump is the most incompetent buffoon ever to be elected President. Staying out of this debate forces liberals into the untenable position of rationalizing what Trump’s buffoonery says about the abilities of their candidate, who lost to him. Winners never have to justify their success, nor are losers entitled to an explanation. The losers will likely default back to blaming the Russians, the FBI, blah, blah, blah. Again, don’t interrupt them. Don’t give away the answers to the test. Don’t say or do anything to steer them towards a real solution. Let the liberals keep talking in circles even if it means taking some verbal abuse ourselves.

My Fellow Deplorables, take liberal showmanship for the absurd comedy that it is. I too laughed my ass off at their infantile YouTube meltdowns. Don’t feel guilty while you belittle the hysterical liberal screeching. It is hilarious entertainment! Yes, I know it’s not nice to mock and gloat, but etiquette is voided the moment anyone puts their manufactured outrage on the internet for all to see. It’s a zero-sum game: They have Saturday Night Live and Bill Maher; we have millions of Hillary voters who can’t keep their finger off the “post” button. In what can only be an irony so beautiful that even Shakespeare could not have crafted it, the Democrats have the nerve to beat up on Trump over his Twitter addiction. At least Trump can say he won.

My fellow Deplorables, stay focused on why you voted the way you did and give a wide berth for the liberals to have hissy fits and chase shiny objects. The Democrats are covered in their own shit while insisting that it’s everyone else who stinks. Let them keep thinking that. Besides the big win, which is the only end result that really matters, Deplorables collect an added bonus: Getting the last laugh on liberals who don’t even know that they are the joke.

donald trump

Revenge of the Deplorables.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Warren.

The world’s oldest functioning democracy has spoken and we are getting President Donald Trump. It was quixotic long shot that blindsided the world, but sometimes long shots actually succeed. The pundits and experts and analysts will spend years picking this election apart to study Donald Trump’s breathtaking smackdown of not just the liberal establishment, but also the media, the polling industry, and the entire Washington plutocracy. Not one of the political science wizards can interpret the 2016 election as well as I, because I am the reason Donald Trump won and liberalism not only failed, but was utterly vanquished.

This story is not mine alone. What follows are the thoughts and feelings of millions.

For at least a generation, and especially in the last eight years, the average everyday conservative Christian white guy has been maligned and beaten. Everything we said and did was twisted into “hate speech” and “intolerance”.

The idea of honest work and paying your own way in this world has morphed into an attitude of entitlement where one has a “right” to pretty much everything, and stick someone else with the bill. That “someone else” was me, and last Tuesday, I raised a big middle finger and spit in the faces of liberal elite.

The simmering pot of conservative retribution has been in the slow cooker for decades, and now dinner is served!

Donald Trump was the only Presidential candidate in my lifetime to understand the average everyday conservative Christian working white guy in any real depth. Strangely, Trump being a silver spoon billionaire with a weak record of conservatism doesn’t matter. I don’t need a President to agree with or be like me. I just want a President who doesn’t hate me.

While I still have a problem with Donald Trump’s sometimes crude decorum and attitudes, when the pablum and crudity is scraped away he “gets it”. He can and does earnestly place himself in the shoes of the average everyday conservative Christian white guy, and that’s why he’s good enough for me.

Hillary Clinton, who has never worked a real job in her entire life and does not say anything unless it is tested in a focus group and cleared by a half dozen paid consultants, is a labyrinth of contradictions and double standards. To paraphrase one conservative commentator, Clinton is so pathologically dishonest, she lies even when she does not have to.

Admittedly, Donald Trump is unnecessarily rough in his manner, but he’s not maliciously deceptive. I would not believe Hillary Clinton if she told me the sun was going to rise tomorrow. Given the choice between a creep or a crook, I’ll take the former.

When liberals are in power they  talk in gentle tones about compromise and working together. What this really means is they believe they know what is best, so go along or be accused of waging a “war on fill in the blank” or branded with a derogatory noun ending with the suffix -ist or -phobe. Now that the tables have been turned, I’m not interested in compromise. I’m not interested in unity or working together. I’m not interested in being friends. The Democrats did not want my friendship then, and I don’t want theirs now.

Simply winning an election was not good enough for me. I also voted for the failure of the Democratic party and intend on using my newfound advantage to demoralize liberals, openly mock, deride, and humiliate them, destroy their policies and legislation, and call them out for the sanctimonious piles of shit that they are. The simmering pot of conservative retribution has been in the slow cooker for decades, and now dinner is served! Believe it.

The party of tolerance and acceptance dismissed us as rednecks from flyover country, bumpkins, NASCAR dolts, hillbillies, white trash, and ignorant xenophobic rubes clinging to guns and religion. They belittled our faith, our values, our communities, and even the trucks we drive. We just kept chugging along in quiet dignity, doing the best we can with what we had. It’s time to settle the score.

What comes around, goes around; the revenge of the pissed off deplorable has come to fruition. Life as a liberal in the USA is about to get very unpleasant, and I’m gleefully looking forward to being one of the reasons why. Last Tuesday’s election was only the beginning; we are going to screw them over every chance we get. Can you hear me now?

Take that Hope & Change and shove it straight up your ass.

patriot card

Playing The Patriot Card.

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Chris Warren.

We have survived two political conventions. No matter what side one is on, it’s universally agreed that two weeks every four years is pushing the limits of tolerance. One conclusion I made from watching portions of both spectacles is that playing the patriot card is often an effective campaign tactic, but it can devalue honorable service and become very unpatriotic and ugly.

For those who don’t know, in political vernacular “playing the patriot card” means to wrap an issue in a theme of loyalty to country, and if you don’t agree, you’re not a good American. The message is almost always delivered by someone with a connection to the military. Because the military is so highly regarded in the United States, people are less inclined to publicly disagree with the message because it implies disrespect to the messenger.

The hustle works like this: A veteran or the family of a veteran who has made a significant sacrifice in service to their country appears at a political rally and publicly endorses a candidate, or speaks against the opposing candidate. Their status presumably gives them a high level of insulation against criticism from the other side. Nobody wants to tell a military hero or their relative that he or she is full of crap (even if they actually are). Anyone who does is loudly called out as insensitive and anti-American. That is how a successful play of the patriot card goes down, and it’s very effective.

Here’s where I have a problem: When someone uses a deep personal sacrifice as a premise to promote a political candidate or cause, to a great extent they forfeit their right to be treated gently because of that sacrifice. They knew or should have known that transforming into an activist means being given much less deference. Their immunity is further eroded if they continue to make media appearances and repeat the same rants. At that point their story no longer belongs to them. They donated it to a political cause.

The first question that comes to mind is, is it disrespectful to trash talk a sympathetic figure who plays the patriot card when you disagree with their political statements? But there is a second question no one ever asks: Isn’t is also disrespectful to offer up the honor of a military hero to score votes for a candidate?

To me the only sensible answer is either “yes” to both questions or “no” to both. One cannot logically have it both ways and say it’s disrespectful to criticize a veteran or their relatives while totally ignoring the fact that it was the veteran or relative themselves who willfully allowed their patriotic contribution to be used as a shill for a political campaign in the first place. Of course even in politics there is such a thing as “too low,” but it’s not my place to figure out that mess. I’ll leave it to others to decide where legitimate criticism ends and ad hominem attacks begin.

In a perfect world, political views would be supported with polite, reasoned arguments and facts. Because American politics seldom operates within any realm of reason or civility, the rules are different than in real life. Those who have sacrificed for their country absolutely, positively deserve the respect they’ve earned. But when they play the patriot card and deal themselves in to the chaotic game of politics, they should understand that the moral armor of distinguished military service becomes much thinner when it is used as a prop for a candidate.

2016 election

Let The Games Begin (Did They Ever End?)

COMMENTARY, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One would have to be living far off the grid not to know the 2016 election for President is less than a year and a half away. Along with it numerous house and senate seats and thousands of local offices will be on the ballot. Term limited President Barack Obama will not be running; by time it’s is over he may end up feeling like a winner again for not having to put himself through the campaign meat grinder. I feel blessed to be living under the world’s oldest working Constitution, but the 2016 election makes me wish all this freedom & democracy would be more meaningful and less in-your-face.

To say election season has begun is either naive or disingenuous. It may have peaks and valleys of activity, but there is no beginning because there never was an end. The cycle of gamesmanship and spin-doctoring resets to zero the day after the last election. It starts faintly in the form of small on line banner ads asking me to participate in a political “survey,” as if anyone believes these surveys are real. Other ads are conveniently promoting political causes I am in favor of myself. They aren’t reading my mind, I just need to clear my computer’s cache and cookies more often.

The closer it gets to 2016 Election Day, the harder it will be to avoid the gathering campaign storm. Quiet banner ads will turn into television commercials six or eight times per hour. “Vote for me!” and “Don’t vote for them!” junk mail will arrive daily. Yard signs and bumper stickers will pop up. Social media will be clogged with memes and links posted by people who honestly believe their cause or candidate will prevail if only it gets enough “likes” and “shares.”

The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens’ United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that “corporations are people” for the purpose of free speech. Corporations and special interest groups that were previously limited on how much they can spend promoting their views may now blow as much money as they want praising their candidate, or trashing on their candidate’s opponent. This court case was and still is very controversial. Democrats dislike it the most, a position I do not understand because the the ruling applies equally to both sides. Liberal and conservative groups have each complained about Citizens’ United while at the same time taking full advantage of the unlimited big spending it allows. The real victims are the ordinary voters who must endure the flood of propaganda.

My problem with the election process is not the process itself, but that the amount of money needed to get elected dilutes the meaning of individual votes. The other day I heard a political analyst on a radio show state that, while everyone has the unfettered right to cast a vote and have it included in the total, the meaning of the vote is not validated because once a candidate wins they are most favorable to whoever wrote the biggest checks. It’s a profound statement that I had not thought of before and the most powerful argument against the Citizens’ United case ruling. There is a big difference between votes being numerically counted and votes having real influence over the person it was cast for.

It’s not very encouraging to hear that the vote I am being nagged to death for won’t have any pull once the 2016 election is over. I understand how the concept of free speech can and probably should include groups having the right to spend their collective money as they please. I’ve donated to assorted causes myself; my dollar is not more important than anyone else’s. Still, it’s not less important either, and I have a problem with other people’s (or corporations’) free speech stepping on mine solely because their check had more zeroes on it. The resolution to the big money in politics problem, if it even is a problem, would not need to involve regulating donations  if elected leaders lived up to the oath of their office and served those who do the actual voting.