Out and About on a Tuesday

Today is the big New York vote. If Trump sweeps it, then he’s got a path to a first ballot majority. If he falls short, then his chances of getting that first ballot majority nearly vanish. Let’s hope the people of New York are wise enough to see that Trump is a disaster in the making.

Brazil, proving itself a wiser nation than the United States, is set to impeach their ultra-Progressive President.

Related: Politico wonders if Trump will be impeached shortly after taking office. I’m with Allahpundit on this – I’m already past that and wondering if we’ll be able to work up a decent primary challenge to President Trump in 2020.

A bit of loan chicanery on the part of Mrs. Sanders?

Related: Whatever you do, don’t buy the “Bernie is My Comrade” T Shirt…his lawyers don’t like it one bit.

A lot of the far left just doesn’t like Hillary. This is the joker in the deck for 2016 and no one is really talking about it. To be sure, against Trump one has to give all advantage to Hillary – but against either Cruz or Trump, we simply don’t know how many people Hillary can drag to the polls in November. Sure, there are still slightly more Democrats than Republicans in the country…but not that much more and the disparity continues to decrease. Beating Hillary might turn out to be just a matter of better GOTV…and in that, I think Cruz has a distinct advantage.

Lots of ISIS fighters come from the West. But, you already knew that.

Republican strategist sues Trump.

10 thoughts on “Out and About on a Tuesday

  1. Retired Spook April 19, 2016 / 9:39 am

    The Left just gets funnier and funnier in a sad pathetic sort of way.

    Disaffected participants in the 2016 White Privilege Conference (WPC) have taken to Twitter to complain that the conference was, ironically, too white and was actually filled to the brim with white supremacy.

    • M. Noonan April 19, 2016 / 11:05 am

      That is enormously funny…

      • Retired Spook April 19, 2016 / 1:23 pm

        They’d be marvelously cheap entertainment if they weren’t so dangerous.

      • M. Noonan April 19, 2016 / 4:59 pm

        Been pondering how dangerous these fools are…the threat is existential. They are like children playing with matches.

      • Retired Spook April 19, 2016 / 5:28 pm

        Depends on which fools you’re talking about; the ones who know they can maintain power by promising people free stuff or the ones who believe there really is a free lunch. They’re each dangerous in their own way. The useful idiots are going to end up being canon fodder when the SHTF. The leaders will hide in their bunkers, lick their wounds and start over.

      • M. Noonan April 19, 2016 / 6:02 pm

        Leaders of Progressive movements almost invariably run away and hide once things get difficult…during the early stages of the Russian Civil War, Lenin and his senior aides were all provided with false passports and wads of foreign cash in case they had to bug out of Moscow in a hurry. Not for Progressive leaders the task of fighting for the cause! That is for other people. Same thing with Germany in 1933…the commies, for the most part, lit out for the hills while the stodgy, old Conservative Catholics and Protestants stayed behind and did their best to oppose the Nazis…with many of them paying with their lives for their actions.

      • Amazona April 19, 2016 / 5:58 pm

        I think this is a more toxic and dangerous version of “Let’s you and him fight”. That is, starting a fight, baiting some fools to jump in and escalate it, and then letting said fools get thumped while the instigators stay behind the lines.

        I keep thinking we have reached a tipping point, and then the Left adds to its lunacy. I think the silliest new whine is that of “cultural appropriation”. As if only black people should have the right to wear filthy-looking dreadlocks that look as if they harbor all kinds of vermin. As if only people from Mexico have the right to cook Mexican food, or write cookbooks about Mexican food. It’s beyond silly, well into profoundly stupid territory.

        I think the questionnaires on whether or not one has benefited by “white privilege” ought to be expanded, however. Some ideas:

        “Have you ever received government benefits that were paid for in any part by money earned by white people?”

        “Have you ever owned a car made by a company started by a white man and/or made by primarily white people?”

        “Do you own or have you ever used a computer?”

        “Do you own or have you ever used a cell phone?”

        “Have you ever been a passenger on an airplane? On a bus? On a train?”

        “Have you ever been vaccinated against a disease?”

        “Have you ever received a medicine or medical treatment developed by a white person?”

        “Do you use any social media on the internet?”

        “Do you vote?”

        “Do you now or have you ever owned clothing branded by Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, or any other white designer?”

        “Do you enjoy or support the sport of basketball, which was invented by a white man?”

        And so on. After all, “white privilege” ought to cover every single thing invented by, developed by, promoted by, financed by or otherwise supported by white people. And then everything that qualifies ought to be reserved for white people. Doesn’t that sound fair?

      • M. Noonan April 19, 2016 / 6:05 pm

        It does get more and more asinine by the day, doesn’t it? But, once again, the whole thrust of Progressive ideology is to relieve the individual of moral responsibility. A class where no one is graded works out great – for the Progressive. For anyone needing an actual education, not so well…but, who cares? The professor has tenure, the kiddies all have student loans which Uncle Sam will eventually annul (as long as said kiddies toe Uncle Sam’s line)…

  2. Amazona April 19, 2016 / 5:42 pm

    Yesterday I posted this: “Right now a perv has to drill a hole in a bathroom wall to take a peek—wait till all he has to do is hold his cell phone under a stall divider.”

    Today I read this: emphasis mine

    “The administration at the University of Toronto was recently enlightened on why two separate washrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residencies.

    The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

    Melinda Scott, dean of students at the University of Toronto, told The Daily Wire that campus police had been contacted immediately and worked with residence staff to “support impacted students and ensure the safety of the Residences.”

    In the same article there is this story:

    “A man claimed a right to use a women’s locker room at a public swimming pool after his partial undressing there caused alarm.

    According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

    When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”


    Gee. Who woulda thunk it?

    And just to top it off, the crew of a show about a “transgendered” shemale is complaining about mixed[-sex bathrooms. It seems the women crew members on a show about a man who thinks he is a woman, or acts like a woman, or something associated with gender confusion, don’t like the idea of men peeing in front of them.

    The beef is that men, women and transgenders can all enter as they please, making it uncomfortable for some of the crew. Women are particularly worried about walking in and seeing a dude peeing at the urinal.

    Now this is interesting … we’re told several crew members are too scared to complain, for fear they’ll be labeled “transphobic,” which would be the kiss of death on that set.


    • Cluster April 19, 2016 / 7:12 pm

      Gee. Who woulda thunk it?

      It’s a mystery. The left has pandered to so many special interest groups over the years that they have twisted themselves into political pretzels. For example; An improved economy and jobs is a number one priority of many voters this election however the environmental lobby has the Democrats by the short hairs and as a result both Bernie and Hillary are promising to punish the oil and coal industry. Aside from the industry jobs themselves, do you have any idea how many ancillary jobs those industries create? Tens of thousands, so it will be interesting to see how either one of those candidates square that one.

Comments are closed.