SJWs are basically the tip of the spear of the Regressive Left and as close to 'anti-liberal' as one can get in many of their politics.

Given their behavior and support structure, it is not hard for me to define SJWs being effectively 'designer people' of the Technocracy which seeks to obtain and maintain totalitarian control over pretty much all aspects of the planet.

Not that Technocrats actually want all that many people being SJWs (or anything more than mindless drones...or gone...) but these folks are basically the shock troops leading to the next phase.  Unfortunately for SJWs, once their mission is accomplished they are become worse than useless.  Forewarned is forearmed.

Zero negative effects for the criminals.

I prefer non-criminals to have the protection they need.  Exactly.

Beyond that, I prefer there being the same kinds of barriers to tyranny which got us our 2nd amendment in the first place.  The basic concept is timeless and probably as relevant to the U.S. now as it has ever been in this time of weaponized migration, starving local law enforcement for funds and organizationally shackling them, and funding and radicalization of homegrown terrorist organizations such as Black Lives Matter.

True.  If a guy has a thing about taxes, the monetary system is what you want to focus on and guns are not very useful here.  Barter, black markets, alternate money systems, etc, are where one should focus their efforts.  This is not even especially 'anti-government' in an environment where a cartel of private banks own the currency system.  Said cartel hires governments to perform the physical protection of their racketeering of course, and these people are sometime armed, but for they 'outgun' Joe Public by enough to render Joe's pea-shooter a liability when they kick in your front door.  So, 'using your gun' for tax reasons, however 'ethical' one might think it, is a fools errand.  Be smart.

Guns are especially valuable in an environment where corp/gov empowers criminal elements within society to do their bidding, and this is hardly a novel technique.  One should certainly be an active 'bitter clinger' to deal with this eventuality, and the lessons from Europe could not make that more clear.

It doesn't make much sense to run if one is sure to lose, or 'win' with elections which are such an obvious sham that make it crystal clear to everyone that Democracy is dead.  Clinton is so incredibly unlikable and corrupt that one of these two outcomes is certain.  When Trump pulls in tens of thousands to his rallys while Clinton gets a few hundred, the 'will of the people' is fairly clear.

The funny thing is that the hundreds that Clinton does get to 'show up' at her rallys are, in a lot of cases, those who stuck around after an event that people actually wanted to see.  Truly pathetic.  If Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' was not as big as the typical eugenicist it's surely getting that way fast.

What would make a great 'fictional' story would be a totally corrupt and sick candidate who died on the campaign trial.  Then a body-double actor filled in for a week or two for phone interviews and long cam shots while a lap-dog media and other propagandists erected and pumped up a sinister straw-man.  Say, for instance, an 'alt-right' cartoon frog on the Kremlin pay-roll...if one is writing a comedy piece...  Then the body double gets 'assassinated' by said villain.  Or more likely, one of the villain's minions leaving no choice but to crack down on this group (generic enemies), their means (memes) and their communications network (the internet).  And thereby usher in a utopic new world order.

In case you don't know, it was a take-off on the ridiculous Pepe one which appeared on hillaryclinton.com...unbelievably!  The 'real' one was funny enough but this one is 10x better.

BTW, I'm becoming gay for BobLawblaw graphics   Keep 'em coming!

^^^ Saw the one above here: http://www.vocativ.com/358799/hillary-clinton-pepe-the-frog/

I was especially amused by the following from that article:

http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-13-at-3.35.36-PM947249456.png

http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-13-at-3.37.06-PM3922714133.png

As much as I detest Microsoft, I do most of my news searches on Bing these days.  The search results really do seem to be quite different when it comes to political stuff.  Probably I should use Yahoo! also but I've never gotten around to it.  DuckDuckGo is pretty limited technically in this regard compared to the giants.

I'm hopeful that there will be a reasonable replacement for Google Apps (docs, e-mail handling, etc) and will be looking to migrate off of Google completely, but things are in a real state of flux right now that it is difficult to know what the landscape will be.  It almost certainly depends a lot on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

If the American Left are serious about clamping down on free speech and nixing the first amendment, and everything points to the conclusion that they are, I have every expectation that Google will be right there with them based on their performance of late.  Almost certainly Google will take a leading role in the project.  Hopefully I'll be able to pay for office services I need based in a free zone...maybe even Russia ironically enough.  The big question will be whether I'd even be able to access servers in such a zone.

The tech giants have been smugly confident that they now have the power to change elections.  One of THE most hopeful things to me about the Trump movement is that it is clear that their confidence was somewhat mis-placed.  An unhappy fall-out from this (whether Trump wins or loses) is that the globalist technocrats will be embarrassed, scared, and very very pissed off.  Look for their reaction to be swift and violent.  It will be even more clear to these folks that the U.S. and it's fucking stupid-ass constitution and antiquated ideas about individual liberty needs to be destroyed, and quickly.

A few other options I've seen pop up:

Kerry:  whatever.

Michelle Obama:  That's an interesting one!  That could work, and it could explain the attention paid to her speech at the convention.  It would get the X chromosome count where it needs to be to adhere to 'the plan.'  It would also mitigate Obama's 'black deficit' conferred on the guy by his mother.  Certainly this is responsible for the appalling results that the black community has realized under the guy you know.  Beyond that, if the rumor than Michelle is tranny  turns out to be true, it will put a checkmark by the third box in the 'black -> woman -> gay(ish)' plan cooked up at the DNC.

How long before the 'tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists' Democratic strategists and their lapdog mainstream media minions blame Putin and the Rooshins for covertly deploying microbes on them?

And how many of Hillary's mouth-breathing supporters will accept it without question?

The mainstream media is now saying that the kind of pneumonia Clinton has is 'bacterial' and not contagious...as the interview a couple of people on her campaign staff who also have gotten sick with it.

At least Clinton didn't take a 'young blood' transfusion from the poor little kid right there on the street.  Maybe she does that in her basement in Chappaqua where she sped off to after stumbling into the van/ambulance.

(I'm joking somewhat but to be perfectly honest at this point I would put nothing past these freaks.  And Hillary did have that weird blood coagulation problem which Dr. Drew has seen only once in his career.  Blood or anything else in one's cerebral-spinal fluid seriously fucks up one's day!)

Here's what some clever seeming person said about the Woolsey thing:


I couldn't agree more


The reason Flynn appeals to me is that I am sure he is in position to know exactly what he is fighting, and has proven to have been willing to do so.

I feel that Trump also has a pretty good idea else he would not have gotten this far, but nothing like what Flynn knows.  Trump's mis-steps (esp, Pence) cause me some concern.  Trump clearly almost didn't make that mistake but at the end of the day he did (though he probably had some reasons I'm cannot be aware of.)

You seem to have some confidence in the CIA (from some earlier post.)  I consider the CIA to be and have been an elite invention and tool from it's very start, and to have done nothing but having got stronger in this capacity since then.  I don't mean to besmerch all CIA employees and I'm sure there are some good ones, but it is fundamentally flawed, dangerous, and un-American and the leadership keeps it that way in my opinion.  Flynn will have the background to understand this better than Trump and to know how to deal with it.

At the end of the day, supporting Flynn, Trump, or anyone else is something of a Hail Mary and a matter of picking the best odds in a risk-reward scenario.  At least as I see it.  Anyone put up by the modern DNC is, however, a sure-lose bet of course.

Anyone is going to need 8 years to really save what's left of the nation and turn things around.  That would put Trump at 80 years old.  While he seems remarkably able now, 80 years old is asking a lot of anyone in the kind of threat environment in which he will be working.  And again, he has made no pretenses about not really wanting to do it anyway if there exist some other option.

Pence was finished before he started in my book.  TPP.

If anything is a touchstone for who plans to sell out the United States for money it is the TPP issue.  As far as I'm concerned, nobody in politics can mis-understand what the TPP is, and the minority who might are not qualified to do anything more than to sweep the floors in a government building.

You know what?  Forget the Epstein thing.  How about doing Flynn anyway?

Trump has said for 30 years that he doesn't even want the job and all he wants is to not see the U.S. go down the drain.  Win, lose, or draw, Trump has made one hell of a mark already.

I'd vote for Flynn in a heartbeat, and especially if Trump was to be one if his close advisers.

As for VP, Pence was one of my biggest disappointments in Trump's work so far.  I like Sessions just fine on the basis of his recent work.  There are some rumors that he did some 'young republican' mischief or something.  If that is to big a deal then there are countless other people who seem to have America's interests at heart.  Trump himself could probably fill in the VP slot which would be awesome and could help keep hold of the people who have eyes for Trump only (though I suspect that most people who support Trump do so on MAGA principles more than simply on the man.)

If the DNC swaps out their ticket, and especially if they do so as a strategic honey-trap move, it might be a great time to fight fire with fire and do the same.  The big question mark is could the 'good guys' beat the RNC?  Have the taken over sufficient?

I'd be cautions about this.  Alas, there are a fair number of 'party line' Dems who would hold their nose and vote for Hillary but don't like her at all.  A fair fraction of my own family I'm disappointed to report.  A 'fresh face' could actually invigorate them somewhat.  At least enough to drag their asses down to the polling station.

Operationally it could work out OK to let the Populist side go ahead and shoot their wad on Clinton then put someone else up without enough time for the opposition to re-group.  To me this is actually one of the more compelling reasons why the Dems would run a hopelessly corrupt semi-corpse.

I personally would like to know if Trump is a child rapist before I vote for the guy.  The trouble is that both the mainstream media and Obama's justice department are so in the tank for Hillary and so discredited that it would take at the very least well analyzed video for me to believe anything they dug up on Trump.

The converse is not true at all.  I take any suggestion of impropriety against the establishment candidate as worth considering.  Beyond that, I take a claim against (x) on the part of, say, the DNC, to be a fairly good indication of (x) being true.  They and many others really do seem like the proverbial 'compulsive liars' to me.

I've been trying to be as analytical about Trump as I can since I started looking into things since Super Tue.  My conclusion at this point is that the guy is not perfect, but there is actually not much hard and credible information arguing that Trump is particularly bad, and there is even a possibility that he is a fairly decent guy.  Certainly by the standards of the political class.

As always, if someone has compelling evidence against Trump, bring it.  You might have to climb an unfairly steep hill, but you can thank the discredited mainstream media and the corrupt government for this 100%.

Thanks BobLawblaw and/or whoever made the meme:



I dunno of anyone thought of this angle before I, but it sort of dawned on me as I was tapping out the post so I'll take it as an original.  I heard it from Molyneux and Cernovich somewhat after I made the post, and I'm betting that one or both are at least occasional readers of this board.  If it is picked up by Trump himself at some point my life will be complete

In point of actual fact, it really IS somewhat irresponsible to be spreading germs around if one is infected with a bacterial lung infection, and quite 'deplorable' indeed to risk a kid's health just for a politically motivated photo-op.

This is why a central planing team needs a little time to vet and war-game some PR angle and get the choreography right.  Someone fucked up, or as we used to say back in the day, 'stepped on their dick.'

I've been saying for half a year that Hillary will drop out if she has to face Trump.  With her 'health episode' today it looks like we won't have much longer to wait.

Of course the DNC says that it's ridiculous alt-right stuff and that they are not having emergency meetings.  I take this as meaning that that is exactly what is going on.  In fact I'll bet that such meetings have been going on for a while.

So, what do they do?

Sanders?  LOL!  That's a good one.  Watch his sorry old ass decline in a mock offering (and some more bruises on his face if necessary.)

Warren?  I don't think so.  She was being courted earlier but mysteriously 'buried the hatchet' and got off the 'war path.'  Probably the stench of Clinton corruption got to great even for her...after she nicely destroyed herself.  Besides, the banks would never allow it.

Kaine?  The 'vibe' says nope.  He remains VP.

Biden?  I thought so for a long time, but after I saw him trying to feel up every little girl that gets within grabbing distance, I don't think so.  We don't need a Creeper-in-Chief?  It's bad enough that he possesses a penis in the first place after all, and he doesn't have time to have it surgically removed which would qualify him in the eyes of the modern regressive Left.

Pelosi?  That would be my guess.  Half of Hillary's current support are women who admit to voting Hillary on the sole basis that she is also XX chromosome-wise.  Pelosi seems like the most logical choice in my off-hand brain-storming mostly because she can make some claim to having experience.  The people voting for Trump generally detest Pelosi, but they are not going to vote for any Dem anyway.

---

Another possibility I just thought of would be for the DNC to run Hillary's corpse with the promise that Bill Clinton would step in.  That would send the party faithful into multiple orgasms of pure ecstasy.  I guess there is some precedent for installing a candidate's spouse here in lower offices.  I guess it is fair to say that one of my Left-tard informants mentioned it a few days ago but I shrugged it off until just now.  Thinking back, I often understand the Left's projects through finding out what sort of programming has been mysteriously (to them) downloaded into their noodle.  So, maybe this is the way the DNC are going to try to play things.

I told someone that when these things happen, the planners need 8 to 12 hours to come up with a story and spread it around and such.  On queue it comes out that Clinton 'has pneumonia'.  Ya, right.  In some respects this is a good cover due to her coughing problems, but the cough that she can't kick (for years) seems to lack production of phlegm judging by the sound.  So, these extended coughing fits don't seem to me a good match for a lung infection.

Clinton collapsed and went to her daughter's (10 million dollar) flat.  90 minutes later she emerged in what has to be the most amusing bit of stagecraft I've seen since Provda in the old Soviet days.  She comes out alone and does her best (with limited success) to pretend that she can walk like a human.  Then someone sends a kid over to get grabbed and slobbered on for the photo-op.

It strike me that if one has pneumonia (story now that she has known since Friday) then it is kind of irresponsible to be getting her germs all over some poor kid.  Especially if it is just to get a media photo which is perfectly and painfully obvious.

Another in my 'if I were Trump' series:

When asked about Clinton's 9/11 memorial 'medical episode', I would

 - make a point of feeling badly for a person in that situation, and how hard it was to watch her trying to soldier on in the midst of minutes long coughing fits.

 - state that it seems 'irresponsible' for her team not to take her to the hospital since she was clearly quite ill and seems to have been for some months.

 - state that it seems kind of 'deplorable' for Clinton's political team to risk her life by not getting her the care she needs just to score some political points.

Here's another idea for the Trump team.  As always, it's probably fairly obvious, but just in case:

Hillary probably cannot do the debates for health reasons.  Her team will(*) try to weasel out by whatever means necessary.

I suggest to just be 100% open and transparent about how to the negotiations are going.  Just state that all they want are an honest forum where the public can compare the candidates ideas and make a good choice.  Offer all kinds of advantages for Hillary (a compfy chair, pillows, earpieces, etc) but be firm in the bedrock principle that the public needs to know Hillary's (or her controller's) mindset and how it compares with that of Trump.

Knowing that the negotiations will fail, prepare a 'mock debate' which is as fair and 'real' as possible, or at least as real as it needs to be.  Choose a debating partner who is actually pretty good and a pretty solid stand-in for Hillary.  Trump's team runs the show (and if they don't like it, do real debates.)

---

* Actually, given the 9/11 ceremony 'health crisis' which just happened, I cannot see any realistic alternative but for Hillary to bow out of the race at this point.  Especially with Assanges' 'Oct surprise' coming next week.  In fact, I would not rule out the possibility that the ceremony 'health crisis' was itself a fraud just to give Hillary an excuse to do just that.