It’s Friday, October 21st, 2016…and no, we didn’t watch the debate. Why waste the time when we’re already committed to voting for the man who’s perhaps the worst possible candidate EVER…except for…
…the alternative!
Particularly when all this heinous harpy brings to the table is…
Now, owing primarily to our participation in the Navy Homecoming Golf Tournament and a Trammell Crow reunion, here’s an abbreviated edition of The Gouge!
First up, courtesy of NRO, Kevin Williamson details the difficulty associated with…
“Donald Trump protests that his ascent to the White House is threatened by a “rigged election.” By the phrase “rigged election” he means different things at different times: that the media treats him unfairly, that other institutions have failed in their duties, that illegal votes will be cast.
All of those are absolutely true, but that is not why Donald Trump is going to lose the election. He will lose because he has failed to win over the voters of — let’s go ahead and call the roll here — the swing states of New Hampshire (+11 Clinton), Virginia (+11 Clinton), Michigan (+8 Clinton), Colorado (+7 Clinton), North Carolina (+6 Clinton), Pennsylvania (+6 Clinton), along with the voters of conservative Georgia (+4 Clinton) and practically every traditionally Democratic state (Trump boasted that he’d put states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York into play, but is in fact losing them by 12, 15, and 20 points, respectively). They are not buying what Trump is selling. Florida is in the toss-up column, which is to be expected, but then so is Texas, which is catastrophic. Utah may very well go for a candidate who may not technically be named “Egg McMuffin” but who may as well be.
Trump is wrong in the conclusions he draws from his complaints, but that does not subtract from the truth of those complaints.
That the news media’s attitude toward Hillary Rodham Clinton vacillates between kid-glove deference (CNN) and outright sycophancy (Politico’s Glenn Thrush) is too well-established to merit my rehearsing it here, and the failure of the Justice Department and other federal agencies in the Clinton e-mail matter is beyond dispute (Andrew C. McCarthy has left James Comey’s reputation in such a condition that its remains cannot be detected by conventional scientific instruments). These are important questions for this election.
But the question of actual electoral fraud is an issue for every election, and bears further consideration.
Try as our Democratic friends might, there is no denying that fraudulent voting happens.(Or that Dimocrats its sole practitioner, having turned voting fraud, quite literally, into an art form!) Illegal immigrants and other non-citizens cast votes: Research from politics professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest finds that one in six non-citizens are registered to vote, and many of them report voting illegally. Legal U.S. voters have been found illegally voting in multiple states. Efforts to purge voter rolls of ineligible voters, e.g. dead people, have been resisted strongly by Democrats, as have efforts to see to the enforcement of laws against voting by felons. It is easily within the realm of statistical possibility that these votes have been decisive in at least two elections: Al Franken’s 2008 Senate election and Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina.
For Democrats, this is a game of moving the goalposts. Their first objection was: Illegal voting doesn’t happen. When it was decisively shown that it does happen, the criterion changed: Well, it doesn’t happen very much. When it was decisively shown that voting infractions are fairly common, the criterion changed again: There’s no dispositive evidence that illegal voting has thrown a major election.
The goalpost-moving game is a funny one. At the same time they deny or attempt to minimize fraudulent voting, Democrats have made a great fuss about “voter suppression,” which usually consists of such sneaky Republican dirty tricks as requiring that voters show up at the polls with a photo-ID card made available to them free of charge at the local DMV.(The libertarian in me suspects that making regular DMV visits a mandatory part of the voting experience would do more to reform American politics than all the think-tank wonkery combined.)Democrats also strongly resist efforts to enforce ordinary laws against fraudulent voting by dead people (Lyndon Johnson’s second-most-important constituency, behind household pets), prisoners, disenfranchised felons, and the like. Even if we buy the argument that there’s no real evidence that illegal voting has thrown an election, there’s no evidence that voter-ID laws or enforcing other voting laws has thrown an election, either.The focal distance of these stories is forever changing: If the question is purported “disenfranchisement,” then anecdote rules and statistical questions are set aside; if the question is illegal voting, then statistical claims are central and anecdotes are dismissed as uninformative.
That’s cheap high-school debaters’ stuff, but it works more often than you’d think…”
Particularly when the Progressive Party’s propaganda arm is moderating the debate!
Next, Marco Rubio demonstrates why he never had a chance, andmay never will:
Why Marco Rubio Is Refusing to Talk About the WikiLeaks Emails
Sen. Marco Rubio is keeping his mouth shut about any revelations in the WikiLeaks emails and is advising his fellow Republicans to do the same.
“As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process and I will not indulge it,” Rubio told ABC news. “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us…”
Only if you’re stupid or arrogant enough to commit such damning statements to print!
Conservatives are fighting for the life of the Founders’ Republic in a no-holds-barred street brawl…
…where, as Project Veritas has conclusively demonstrated, anything goes; and Marco wants to unilaterally abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules?!? What planet was Rubio on in 2008 and 2012, when the Republican nominees sat back and passively tookevery bit of mud the Dimocrats chose to sling?!? Can he still not appreciate the seething anger, frustration and resentment in the GOP’s base which gave rise to Trump in the first place?!?
If one can consider Marco for a moment of Italian rather than Cuban descent, Jimmy Malone’s observation in The Untouchables is perfectly applicable:
Wake up and smell the Café Cubano, Senator; as one Sabine Durden, anti-illegal immigration activist and Donald Trump supporter, recently learned on the campus of UCLA, Dimocrats don’t give a damn…
…about rules…your’s or anybody else’s!!!
We take back what we’ve said in the past about Senator Rubio: he’e either not overly bright, or he’s truly part of the Establishment. We report, YOU decide.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.