Chicago Chaos

So this happened:

Donald Trump’s campaign on Friday postponed a rally in Chicago amid fights between supporters and demonstrators, protests in the streets and concerns that the environment at the event was no longer safe.

The announcement, which came amid large protests both inside and outside the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago, follows heightened concerns about violence in general at the GOP front-runner’s rallies. Illinois holds its Republican primary on Tuesday.

Hundreds of demonstrators packed into an arena, breaking out into protest even before Trump had shown up. At least five sections in the arena were filled with protesters.

“Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago, and after meeting with law enforcement, has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date,” the Trump campaign said in a statement. “Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace.”

Several fistfights between Trump supporters and protesters could be seen after the announcement, as a large contingent of Chicago police officers moved in to restore order.

Supporters of Trump still inside chanted “We want Trump” after the event was canceled. Protesters, meanwhile, shouted “We shut s*** down” and “We stumped Trump.” Others chanted “Bernie” as supporters whipped out Bernie Sanders campaign signs.

A few things to unspool here.

First, I don’t have a lot of respect for the protesters. I understand that they don’t like Trump; I don’t like Trump. But disrupting his campaign and then boasting about how you shut someone up is simple thuggishness. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of thuggishness we’ve come to expect from the Left these days, especially from those in college or recently graduated. It’s not enough to disagree; it’s not enough to speak against; the opposition must be silenced.

I want to be clear: Donald Trump’s First Amendment Rights were not violated. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship, not private condemnation or censorship. But the tendency … no, the need of the Left Wing to silence those they disagree with is appalling. It used to be that the Left was proud of letting the KKK or Nazis speak … actual KKK and Nazi people, not people they were calling Nazi because they couldn’t refute their arguments.

Had the protesters made their point in some way without shutting down a political rally, I’d be fine. The Chicago protests grew out of comments Trump has made about police officers being the most oppressed people in the country. Chicagoans — who recently saw a long-buried video of an officer shooting a suspect who was walking away and found out about a dark site where thousands of suspects were detained and brutalized — don’t exactly agree. But disrupting a rally to the point of cancellation doesn’t make that point; it distracts from it.

Moreover, this plays right into Trump’s hands. So much so that many on Twitter were joking that Trump probably paid the protesters to do this. Trump’s entire schtick is that the voices of the American people are being silenced by a know-it-all politically-correct elite who have decided, without any input from us, that certain speech and certain viewpoints are unacceptable. How does this change that narrative? It doesn’t; it reinforces it. It convinces the American people, more than ever, that the political elite don’t want to hear what we have to say.

(Trump understands this. The decision to cancel the rally was his. The Chicago PD has said they were confident they could have kept the rally under control.)

Now it is true that Trump’s rallies have been the site of pro-Trump violence. It is also true that Trump himself has encouraged violence and made excuses for it. Last week, one Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester. Trump almost defended the punch, claiming (falsely) that the protester was hitting people and flailing around. A few days ago, his Campaign Manager grabbed a reporter hard enough to leave bruises. Trump’s people are still pretending it didn’t happen, despite video, audio and witnesses supporting the reporter’s account. In short, Donald Trump complaining about violence impinging his right to free speech is like Hillary Clinton complaining about dishonesty in politics.

But the response to that is not to “bring more muscle” in the words of a certain recently fired Mizzou professor. The response is not to shout him down and stop him from speaking. The response is to show that you are better: that you will make your point while respecting his right to make his.

Unfortunately, that kind of mutual respect is no longer being taught to our young people. All that matters is “social justice”. Well, they might just “social justice” their way right into a Trump presidency.

Your Body, Their Choices

One thing we need to dispense with is this curious notion that progressives are all about personal autonomy and choice. They aren’t. They’re that way about abortion. But they believe strongly that every other choice in life needs to be made for you by a benevolent government.

Consider:

  • Progressives don’t think you should have a choice about healthcare, retirement or education. Your kids should go to the nearest school, you should get Obamacare (or better, single payer) and government-controlled Social Security is enough for the likes of you.
  • Progressives have backed off efforts to lower the drinking age. A number support bigger taxes on alcohol because they think it will cut consumption.
  • Progressives are mixed on the War on Drugs and many support keeping sex work illegal.
  • Numerous progressives favor a “soda tax” to cut consumption, praised Bloomberg for outlawing Big Gulps and want to use the food stamp program to control people’s appetites.

The latest is the long running War on Smoking. Not content with massive taxes, bans in public places, bans in private places and rules on smuggling that end up with street vendors selling “loosies” getting killed by cops, they now want to raise the age to buy cigarettes to 21 (because raising the drinking age worked so well). California is the second state to do this.

Now put aside the hilariously optimistic projections of how many lives this will save. Such projections have always turned out to be way too optimistic (see, e.g., lowering the speed limit to 55). Note the tone of the Vox piece: personal choice is irrelevant. What matters is the effect. If it means even one fewer person smoking, then eating away at the freedom of people old enough to fight in Iraq is worth it. There is no consideration, none whatsoever, to the idea of personal freedom … the seemingly quaint notion that if someone want to wreck their health, that’s their prerogative.

This is what progressivism has always been, since it slithered into existence a century ago: personal freedom doesn’t matter, all humans are assets and the laws should be written to maximize the utility of those assets to the state. Freedom and choice don’t matter; policy does. It’s why early progressivism favored things like alcohol prohibition, sex work prohibition and eugenics (seriously). They wanted to, as Mal Reynolds would say, make people better. And they still do.

I used to smoke but I don’t anymore. I regret ever having taken up the habit and I hope my children never do. But that should be their choice. An 18-year-old is an adult. They are more than capable of deciding whether or not to do something as stupid as smoking.

The Party of Trump

Because I am a glutton for punishment, I watched the GOP debate last night. It was much more “substantive” with less personal attacks. But “substantive” is relative term when Donald Trump is on the stage. Debating Trump on substance is like debating a goldfish: by the time he gets to the end of an answer, he’s forgotten what he said at the beginning. He said Iraq was a mistake but he would send more tens of thousands of troops to hit ISIS. He bashed Democrats for doing nothing about Social Security and then promised not to touch Social Security. He called the Tiananmen Square protests “riots” and refused to denounce violence at his own rallies.

But I’m getting into the weeds. The thing that really jumped out from last night debate was this: the GOP is becoming the Party of Trump, regardless of whether he’s the actual nominee or not.

For example: all the candidates on stage inveighed against free trade. The GOP used to understand that free trade was good for this country. Ted Cruz occasionally tried to make that point again: that the US has few trade barriers and that our trade deals mostly open markets for us in other countries. But the Sanders-Trump axis has latched onto American’s discontent with the economy and persuaded them that free trade is the name of their pain and the reason jobs have gone away.

It isn’t. Most of our manufacturing job losses are because of automation. Unless Donald Trump plans to physically rip robots out of factory floors — not completely impossible — that’s not changing. The real way to boost the job market in America is to make it easier to do business in America. Simplify regulations that destroy hundreds of billions of dollars in productivity and millions of jobs. Overhaul the corporate tax code that is equally damaging. Other countries are doing this; we’re going in the opposite direction, piling regulation upon regulation and tax code upon tax code. End that. Make America a place where it’s easy to do business. And corporations will stampede to do business here.

Trade tariffs are not “protection”. They’re a tax. They make everything we buy more expensive and don’t relocate a single job into this country. But the GOP has abandoned this.

And that was just one issue. On immigration, on foreign policy, on torture, on criminal justice, all the candidates came off as Trump Lite. That’s a mistake. If the voters have a choice between Trump and Trump-Lite, they will go with Trump. But no one on that stage had the gravitas to push back against Trumpism.

Between these two parties, I am convinced that, regardless of who wins the election, we are headed for another lost economic decade. No one outside of Paul Ryan seems to understand how hard it is to do business in this country and how many millions of jobs and billions in wages our tax and regulatory system destroy. No one wants to stand against anti-immigrant and anti-trade hysteria. No one seems to understand that getting more involved in the Middle East is a mistake. No one seems to understand or care about the pending budget crisis. We are caught between one party that wants to blow up the debt with tax cuts and spending and another that wants to blow it up with more spending and more spending.

Maybe the GOP can recover if someone manages to beat Trump. But that’s looking less and less likely. Look, I’m tired and I’m getting over a cold. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. But watching last night’s debate, desperately hoping to see something to hpoe for after the big government dumpster fire that was the last Democratic debate, I felt like I looked into the abyss. And the abyss tried to sell me steaks.

Update: Rubio’s people today are urging their voters in Ohio to support Kasich so that Trump won’t win Ohio. Kasich (and Cruz) have declined to reciprocate.

I must say, this really impresses me. Rubio is putting the party and the country ahead of himself. Bravo.

The Free College Fraud

One of the big promises the Democratic party is making these days is that they are going to make college “more affordable” or even “free” for Americans at public colleges and universities. Clinton is proposing $350 billion in new spending to basically replace student loans. Bernie Sanders wanted to make tuition free at public universities, which is a big reason for his support among young people. Matt Yglesias, one of the few liberals who was previously skeptical of this idea, has now come along for the free ride.

Now, never mind that we are already spending a lot of public money on higher education. States are spending more money than ever, over $80 billion, supporting their universities (per student spending is down because enrollments have swelled). Pell Grants alone have tripled over the last 15 years. And we have made a series of moves to try to make college loans more available.

The result? Higher costs, more spending, more debt. Tens of billions pumped in without college becoming one cent more affordable. Is there any reason to believe that another $35 billion a year or $50 billion a year or $100 billion a year will suddenly achieve that the previous trillions of have not?

No. Because economics exists.

Let’s imagine that you run an industry making sprockets. Let’s say that the American people are willing and able to pay about $100 billion for your sprockets. What would happen if the federal government came in and said, “Sprockets are too expensive! We will give the sprocket industry $50 billion to lower prices!” Unless they actually force you to lower prices, you’re going to now charge $150 billion for those sprockets — the $100 billion that Americans are willing to pay out of their own pockets plus the $50 billion you’re now getting from the government.

Indeed, this is what almost every economist has concluded about the cost of higher education. Massive government subsidies — through grants, state spending, scholarships and undischargeable loans — has massively increased the cost of higher education. It has resulted in universities hiring armies of administrators to do everything under the sun. It has resulted in a bloated overweight industry in which faculty hires are flat and much of the actual teaching is done by poorly-paid adjuncts.

So what’s going to happen when Clinton pours another $350 billion into that pool? Colleges will just raise the cost of higher education by about $350 billion, mainly by increasing enrollment.

And what will happen if Bernie Sanders guarantees “free” college? What’s to stop Michigan State from charging $100,000 a year for tuition? What’s to stop Georgia from enrolling 200,000 students? Even if half of those students fail, there are plenty more who will jump at a “free” education. And do you think North Carolina or Tennesee or any other university will care if they’re admitting semi-literate idiots as long as they get their money? (answer: no).

Bill James:

Anyone who believes that this program is actually going to reduce the cost of college, pardon my pointing this out, is an imbecile. Why? Because the price of anything depends on a) how much of it is purchased, and b) how much money is available to purchase it … When you make more money available to purchase anything, it simply drives up the cost of whatever is being purchased. Certain portions of our voting population, for reasons that baffle me, seem unable to learn this. Anything and everything that the government “helps to make more affordable” automatically becomes dramatically more expensive. The government makes money available to purchase health care; the cost of health care skyrockets. The government makes money available to purchase education; the cost of education skyrockets. These are, in fact, the two main things that the governments wants to pour money into, and the cost of both of them has been skyrocketing since the moment the government decided to make them “affordable” … There was a study about 15-20 years ago about the costs of various surgical proceedings; it studied about 20 different common surgeries. The study found that the normal price of every surgery that the government paid for — such as coronary bypass surgery — had gone up tremendously during the period of the study, while the price of every surgery that the government would NOT pay for, such as liposuction, laser eye surgery, and cosmetic dental repairs, had DROPPED dramatically in the same period. My memory is that every surgery that the government refused to pay for had dropped in price by at least 70% over the course of the study, while other health care costs were increasingly rapidly. Well, OF COURSE it would. Anyone who has ever taken Economics 101 should KNOW that that is what would happen, and would expect it to happen … And yet, cynical politicians like Hilary Clinton keep INSISTING, generation after generation, millions after millions, billions after billions, trillions after trillions, that they are “making health care affordable” when they pour more money into its purchase! It is unbelievable to me that anyone actually believes that this is true … Look, if you want the cost of college to drop, STOP POURING MONEY INTO ITS PURCHASE. Of course we have to help poor people get access to education; of course we have to help minorities get a fair shake. But the rest of us are NOT being helped by this insane policy.

As James noted in later discussions, the only way government have stayed out of this trap is by rationing and price-controlling. In the case of healthcare, limiting the number of procedures performed or capping doctor’s fees; in the case of higher education, limiting the number of students who go to college or limiting what universities can charge. No sane government would create a system where colleges could admit as many students as they wanted and charge whatever they wanted with a federal guarantee of payment.

Indeed, countries that guarantee “free education” send way fewer students to college than we do and limit what their colleges can spend. The problem is that this would never happen in the United States. It would never happen because academics are one of the most reliable sources of Democratic votes in the universe (95%, a level of party loyalty only seen among evangelical Christians, which make sense given that some academic sounds like they’re speaking in tongues). And it would never happen because public universities and colleges are state-controlled institutions.

Again … this is not rocket surgery. This is basic economics. No one would with an IQ larger than Donald Trump’s jock size thinks that just handing over money to an industry is a good idea. Clinton is not an idiot (Sanders might be). She certainly has people around her who understand this. The Democrats have repeatedly called for price controls or rationing in federal healthcare (they don’t call it that; they call it “negotiation”; but that’s what it is).

But when it comes to the cost controls necessary for “free” education, both candidates are oddly silent. Sanders’ “plan” is just a vague promise of free education with no sense of cost control. Clinton’s is more detailed but, if I understand it, would subsidize the states on the promise that they would control college costs. Even if the states controlled costs, they would do so by cutting their own subsidies to higher education so that they could spend it on something else (the same way that they used the lottery to fund K-12 education).

So why are Democrats pushing this nonsense? Why won’t they admit that the only this would make education more affordable is by forcing universities to cap costs or enroll fewer students? Part of this is to avoid pissing off their base of support among young people and academics. But there’s something else going on here. James again:

I refuse to believe that Hilary is actually stupid enough that she doesn’t realize what she is doing. She (and her cohorts) are deliberately driving up the cost of education in order to make the middle class dependent on the government

Give that man a cigar!

Remember a few years ago when the Obama Administration put out “the Life of Julia”? It depicts a woman going from cradle to grave with government subsidy after government subsidy directing her life. It created such a backlash that I can’t even find the original to link it. All the top links are mockeries, debunkings and parodies.

What creates more dependence? People paying $10,000 out of their own pockets for a $10,000 higher education? Or people paying $10,000 out of their pockets and getting $30,000 in government grants for a $40,000 education?

This is the Democratic vision for America — total dependence upon the state from cradle to grave with every election being an auction between two big parties promising ever greater baubles.

The bad news is that, at this point, it seems that Clinton is very likely to be the next President. And if she isn’t, Sanders might be. And if he isn’t, Trump might be and God know what Trump will do. The good news, however, is that none of this can get done without Congress.

This will be a recurring them with me for the next eight months. It would be nice if the Republicans won the White House. But is absolutely vital that they retain the House, if not the Senate as well. It’s the only way to keep a cap on this madness.

Catching Up

So, let’s go through what went on while I was on vacation.

No, there is too much. Let me summarize:

  • The Republican frontrunner assured America that there is nothing wrong with the size of his genitals. Despite this, he continued to win primaries. He capped off the week with a campaign event where he hocked a bunch of his branded merchandise, some of which turned out not to be his merchandise and attacked those suing him over his bogus university.
  • Surprisingly, this was only the second most-nauseating piece of world-leader-genitalia-related news in the last year.
  • Despite endorsements, a positive outlook and policy smarts, Marco Rubio sank like a stone. He now appears likely to lose the Florida primary, which would basically finish him as a candidate.
  • Ted Cruz surged forward as the only viable rival to Trump at this point. I have my issues with Cruz. But at least he’s better than Trump. As I noted before, I’m not sure if I’d vote for him, but I’d feel a lot less doomed if he were the Republican candidate.
  • A socialist won a stunning victory in the Michigan primary, upending a 20-point deficit in the polls.
  • Clinton tried to call him out on how he’s going to pay for all his crap. Of course, this elided the problem that we don’t have enough money to pay for our existing load of crap, let alone any of the stuff that Clinton has proposed.
  • Telemundo had the temerity to ask Clinton about her scandals and was flayed for it by the pro-Hillary press. She smugly assured us that she will not be indicted. She’s probably right. The elites never are. That’s precisely why millions of Americans are turning desperately to a crackpot commie-sympathizer and crackpot pseudo-billionaire.

In short, the country continued to go to hell in a handbasket whether I was documenting it or not.

I’ll have more to say on several issues. But there’s some comfort in knowing that it’s not just me: our politics is getting stranger by the hour.

Criminals say they won’t eat one of their own.

I fucking hope Trump wins the election, puts a crony in charge of the DOJ, and uses it to go after his political enemies and protect his friends, because then I can bring up examples like this to point out to the usual leftard howling about abuses of power how fucking evil their side really is.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that the law doesn’t require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges.

Lynch was asked in a hearing by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, what her department would do if the FBI were to recommend that step. “If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?” Cornyn asked.

Lynch didn’t answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do.

“It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures,” Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be “done in conjunction with the agents” involved in the investigation. “It’s not something that we would want to cut them out of the process.”

What this WH serf is basically saying is that in true Obama admin fashion, the DOJ, even now that Holder is gone, will only fuck over the people they want to, even if those people have really committed no crime, while providing cover for the real criminals they share their social circles with.

The legacy of the Obama administration is that this administration has set the standards when it comes to arbitrary law enforcement applied to favor their side and harm their enemies. And I can’t wait for someone else to get to do it to them. We are doomed anyway, so why not give these fuckers a good dose of their own medicine. Those of you that are all for this shit because it is your side doing it, remember that it doesn’t even take the other side for all this to turn ugly on you. A vindictive and petty bitch like Hillary would fuck over friend or foe to remind everyone they better kiss her fat as or else.

Eat The Rich

After 6 seasons, Downton Abbey came to close last night. I was on board pretty early with this series, I like period pieces and the BBC has a history of doing fine work in this area. As an aside, season 2 of Poldark starts in a few months, do yourself a favor, go to your local library and check out season 1. Being a big fan of the books, this series translates well. Much grittier than Downton, Poldark makes a living out of squalor, the ruthlessness of the upper class, and the hardships of survival.

No one can say this last episode was not predictable, many loose ends were nicely tide in a bow, but I could not help but wonder how, with most of the staff moving on to better lives, how all those upper crust were going to take care of themselves (I can just see Lord Grantham starving to death, food 6 feet away, with one to serve him).

We all knew Edith was not going to be left a spinster so her good fortune was expected. But it was hard to believe that a momma’s boy like Bertie was going to marry a tainted lady. And Edith loved her job as an editor, baby in tow was bad enough but a working woman? It strains credulity.

I never understood why so many episodes were wasted with men of quality falling all over themselves trying to wed Mary. I thought she was a bit of a nut job and a snob, she got off far too easy sabotaging Edith’s life, no wonder she was not trusted within the family. Her eventual hook up with Henry was a bit ho hum.Then him and Branson going to together as car dealers, I can just see the Dowager having a stroke over the impropriety. Best line of the whole series was season one where Matthew says he will be working in town but can spend the weekends at Downton and the Violet asks ,”What is a weekend?”

I always had a bit of a soft spot for Mrs. Patmore, I guess she will be hooking up with Mr. Mason, although we never found out if her B&B went bust.

I was glad to see the Dowager and Isobel come closer, despite the differences, each needed each other and depended on each other to navigate the treachery of old age.

I was ambivalent about Daisy, figuring she made her bed now she can lie in it, but was happy for Andy. Hopefully she will get over herself and make him happy.

I thought Mosley and Baxter would hook up. I read somewhere that a Downton Abbey movie is a possibility [groan] that should be one of the new plot lines.

Lastly, all this misplaced sympathy over Barrow, despite all the evil he perpetrated in their lives. Yes, it showed redeeming qualities in the rest of them, but his new found fortune of being head butler at Downton, thus having power over all the other servants, not exactly cricket. And I can imagine what Bates was thinking about all this. He should take Barrow out to the woodshed, kick his ass, then explain the rules to his new boss.

Nancy Reagan, RIP

I’ll take a brief look in from my vacation to note that Nancy Reagan passed away yesterday. It was not a sad thing. She lived to be 94 and had an amazing life. As First Lady, she had both class and poise. She urged Reagan to respond to the AIDS crisis and welcomed anyone into the party and into the White House. She did a sterling job of preserving her husband’s legacy. When Reagan passed away, I drove down to DC for the viewing and it was a everything you would have expected: solemn, but at the same time uplifting.

RIP.

And So It Begins

The MSM has been enamored with Trump mania, and why shouldn’t they be? A great story, a walking contraction spin 180 degree on the issues mob boss who can’t spell, can’t articulate how is going to make America great again, but will fight for you all the while taking your guns, your freedom of speech and your jobs (outsourcing them to Mexican illegals), the gift that keeps on giving has journalist all aflutter. But now that he can actually win something, the gloves are coming off. Ridiculing Trump without breaking a sweat, and you thought they were lazy before this;

The very epitome of low hanging fruit.

I guess he will be suing a lot of people,those unhappy Trump university students better wet their beak before Melania has to sell her furs.

Benedict Arnold wants a do over…

She should be wearing an orange jumpsuit and making licenseplates, but even revelations like this one seem to leave a bought and paid for media unwilling and unable to do the right thing. If she were only a republican. From the article:

The State Department’s recent discovery of thousands of unsearched records from Hillary Clinton’s tenure has delayed several public records lawsuits and could keep many of the documents out of the public sphere until next fall.

The watchdog groups Citizens United and Judicial Watch, which are suing the State Department for Clinton-related records, are two plaintiffs that have been affected by the discovery. The State Department said the new documents could take months to process, a time period that extends well beyond its court-ordered deadlines.

Citizens United said the State Department has yet to explain how the electronic files were overlooked for the past two years, raising questions about whether this was a stonewalling effort. The group is seeking records related to Clinton donors Gilbert Chagoury and Rajiv Fernando.

“With this 11th hour revelation, the State Department has missed its court-ordered deadline to finish the production of documents in this case,” said David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United. “These newly discovered records could impact document production in other Citizens United FOIA lawsuits as well as cases involving other plaintiffs.”

On Jan. 14, the State Department disclosed in a Judicial Watch case that officials had recently found shared and individual electronic files in the executive secretary’s office that were not previously searched in response to the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last May.

Although the court had ordered the State Department to turn over all relevant records by last October, attorneys said they would need until this spring to process the new documents.

State filed a nearly identical status report in the Citizens United lawsuit on Feb. 29, the same day as its court-ordered deadline to turn over all requested documents.

Attorneys for the department told Citizens United the discovery of unsearched records could set back the processing schedule until next fall. The State Department said it had not informed Citizens United earlier because its attorneys did not know about the new sources of records until Feb. 11—even though they had been disclosed to Judicial Watch in early January.

“Neither State’s agency counsel nor undersigned counsel for State was aware of this issue until February 11, 2016,” said the State Department in a Feb. 29 court filing.

According to court statements, the new sources of information come from the executive secretary’s office, which acted as the liaison between Secretary Clinton’s office and the rest of the State Department, the White House, and national security agencies.

One of the new sources is a series of “shared office folders,” computer folders that were used by multiple staff members. State Department public records officials said they first discovered this source in November. They said the files had previously been overlooked because they had been “retired” and removed from the executive secretary’s office last year.

Pataeus lost it all for less, has been laid low, and in order to avoid jail time, had to agree to never join the corrupt political world Obama and Hillary run. Benedict Arnold lost his life for helping out the enemy. The fucking left wants us to reward them and Hillary for doing far worse because she has a vajayjay or something. When the WaPo asked if this was the end of the west as we know it they tried to pretend the problem was Trump, but Clinton is far, far, worse than Trump on his most worst day.

If you are wondering about the answer though, the answer is “Yes”, it is the end of the west. But not as they would like you to believe just because of what comes next (if we don’t elect Hillary like they want us to). The real damage was caused in the last 8 years. Of course we will never get this admission from people that now have to pretend this isn’t true to avoid having to admit those of us that told them they had no idea how horrible and bad things could and would get with the incompetent criminal they not only put in the WH, but then gave another 4 years to after the most deceptive and abused election in my lifetime. Buyer beware. Obama made Boosh look like a fucking genius and a statesman. Hillary will end up making Obama look decent.

This is your fundamentally transformed America, and as those of us that understood what you people were foisting on us pointed out, he was not interested in making things better like you kept pretending. Hillary will make this idiot look competent and reasonable, but we can’t point out that she is a fucking shitty person and as incompetent and destructive as Obama, because we will be accused of saying so just because she is a woman. The facts be damned.