NY Times: Donald Trump’s Victory Was Built on Stupid White Voters Or Something

By William Teach November 10, 2016 – 7:50 am

When Republicans lose an election, the become introspective  (mostly) to determine what they did wrong and how they can do better. When Democrats lose, most introspection goes out the window in favor of Blamestorming

A Victory Built on a Unique Coalition of White Voters

….

And it extended through the suburbs of Cleveland and Minneapolis, of Manchester, N.H., and the sprawl north of Tampa, Fla., where middle-class white voters chose Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton.

One of the biggest upsets in American political history was built on a coalition of white voters unlike that of any other previous Republican candidate, according to election results and interviews with voters and demographic experts

.

Which is obviously a problem for the lily white writers at the NY Times. How dare white people vote in their best interests!!!!

Mr. Trump’s coalition comprised not just staunchly conservative Republicans in the South and West. They were joined by millions of voters in the onetime heartlands of 20th-century liberal populism — the Upper and Lower Midwest — where white Americans without a college degree voted decisively to reject the more diverse, educated and cosmopolitan Democratic Party of the 21st century, making Republicans the country’s dominant political party at every level of government.

In other words, they’re calling them all stupid. You can feel the sneering condescension, can you not?

But Mr. Trump also won over millions of voters who had once flocked to President Obama’s promise of hope and change, and who on Tuesday saw in Mr. Trump their best chance to dampen the most painful blows of globalization and trade, to fight special interests, and to be heard and protected. Twelve percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters approved of Mr. Obama, according to the exit polls.

Those people saw no hope and change. Obama’s America is one of stagnation, low wage jobs, division at all levels, a government that attacks it’s citizens while hooking up Iran, etc and so forth. Back in February, Peggy Noonan wrote about the Protected vs The Unprotected

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

Go back and read it again. Seems rather right on the mark. People voting for what they perceive as the guy who will protect them. Why do you think the drain the swamp call resonated with so many?

Of course, the Dems will not accept why they failed. They will simply blamestorm.

Read: NY Times: Donald Trump’s Victory Was Built on Stupid White Voters Or Something »

Posted in Elections, Liberal World | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Seem A Bit Unhinged Over The “Trump Effect” On Climate Change

By William Teach November 9, 2016 – 2:50 pm

I’m hoping to move away from lots of daily Trump posts, but, I doubt that will happen anytime soon, not when so many Leftists are providing such great material. Like

‘Trump effect’ will test global momentum on climate change

Donald Trump’s presidential victory throws into doubt America’s policy stance on the major global issue of climate change – and does so at a pivotal moment, just as nations from around the world are trying to solidify and build on a landmark accord to slash carbon emissions nation by nation.

Mr. Trump has called climate change a hoax and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement reached by nearly 200 nations last year. That agreement, the details of which negotiators are now discussing at a UN conference in Marrakech, legally requires that countries monitor and report their progress on emissions of heat-trapping gases. But it doesn’t bind them to actually meet their pledged targets for reducing emissions.

Now, with the Paris agreement newly in force as of last week, it’s not clear if Trump will actually pull America out of the deal. But he can certainly withdraw US leadership on climate action – with repercussions for both US carbon emissions and international momentum on the issue.

“It is going to be difficult if the federal government pulls out of the game for the states, the cities and the businesses to do it on their own,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said at a press conference in Marrakech. “It is an ambitious target especially, when you’re trying to do it without the support of the Congress.”

First, I hope he keeps his word about removing the U.S. from Paris. Second, it was set up to explicitly avoid Congressional participation. You know, the duly elected Legislative branch.

Then we have, along the same lines

Trump win the ‘most miserable U.S. election result’ for fighting climate change, scientists say

Environmental activists were devastated by the election result, with May Boeve, leader of the 350.org environmental group, calling it a “disaster.”

“Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to throw all of our weight on the accelerator,” Boeve said. “In the United States, the climate movement will put everything on the line to protect the progress we’ve made and continue to push for bold action.”

Let’s hope he does slam those brakes on.

Of course they do. They could see their power, prestige, and money dry up.

Read: Warmists Seem A Bit Unhinged Over The “Trump Effect” On Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Donald Trump, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 9, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous couch made out of material from animals raised by mankind that cause climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on Trump’s acceptance speech.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Washington Votes No On ‘Climate Change’ Initiative

By William Teach November 9, 2016 – 10:31 am

I guess the liberals in Washington state didn’t really care to vote themselves a cost of living increase that would impact their own lives

(Puget Sound Business Journal) Washington state voters rejected the Initiative 732 proposal that would have created the first state carbon tax in the U.S.

About 59 percent of voters were rejecting the initiative Tuesday night at about 9:30 p.m.

Under the failed measure, the state would have levied a $15 per metric ton tax on carbon emissions starting in July 2017. The tax was proposed to grow to $25 per metric ton in July 2018 and increase 3.5 percent plus inflation each year until the tax reached $100 per metric ton.

The measure also would have reduced the state sales tax from 6.5 percent to 5.5 percent.

Washington Democrats were against the measure, since it gave citizens tax breaks, and they wanted people to feel the pain for daring to drive fossil fueled vehicles.

“Grassroots activism accomplished what many environmental leaders and media pundits said was impossible: we put a revenue-neutral carbon tax on the ballot,” Carbon Washington founder and co-chair Yoram Bauman said in a prepared statement. “While we did not pass the nation’s first carbon tax, many states around the country are looking at I-732 as a model and we expect a nationwide movement to take root in the years ahead. We will look back at this as a lost opportunity to create history in Washington State, but also as a catalyst for much needed U.S. leadership on climate action.”

Carbon Washington will continue its work at the Legislature “and to promote effective, equitable, economically sound and politically viable carbon pricing in other states and in Washington, D.C.,” co-chair Joe Ryan said.

If the Warmists want to lead, they should make their own lives carbon neutral. Here we see, though, getting beyond all the spin, that a majority refuse to pay through the nose for their own beliefs. They don’t think they should suffer the consequences of their own regressive beliefs.

Meanwhile, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada look to have approved the use of recreational marijuana. A few other states appear to have passed it’s use for medical purposes. All in violation of federal law.

Colorado, Maine and Arizona voters approved minimum-wage measures, raising the wage to $12 by 2020. Washington voters approved a plan raising the wage to $13.50 over the next four years.

The nearby states will be thrilled to accept the companies who escape those states.

Oh, and the People’s Republik Of Brokeifornia overturned their ban on single use plastic bags. Guess they prefer convenience over climate doom.

Read: Washington Votes No On ‘Climate Change’ Initiative »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Special Liberal Snowflakes Trend #HesNotMyPresident

By William Teach November 9, 2016 – 7:04 am

Yes, it is that kind of day which deserves a second post on the Trump winning, albeit along a slightly different line. Remember when Democrats chastised Republicans for saying “Obama’s not my president”? This came after Democrats said that about George W. Bush for almost 8 years, but really starting about the time of the Iraq war. I myself proclaimed in 2011 that Obama was Not My President. But, now we get

Yeah, we do

Read More »

Read: Special Liberal Snowflakes Trend #HesNotMyPresident »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 113 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Explains How Trump Won In A World Where America Has Issues

By William Teach November 9, 2016 – 6:51 am

So, it’s official. Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States. I’m excited that Hillary was defeated. It’s enormously gratifying to see liberals, Democrats, and the media running the gamut of emotions from shock to despair. So many were predicting that Trump was done (note: I didn’t think he could pull it out, either). It will be interesting to see who is the first to proclaim misogyny in Hillary’s loss, as well as the first to proclaim that the election was stolen. You know it is coming.

The NY Times editorial board is, unsurprisingly, a bit unhinged about the whole thing. I’d usually go with their screed, but, the one from the Washington Post editorial board is a bit more amusing

You have to know that had Hillary won, it would have been about rallying behind Hillary and her mandate.

DONALD TRUMP was elected the 45th president of the United States on Tuesday. Those are words we hoped never to write. But Mr. Trump shocked the pollsters, riding a wave propelled in part by rural and Rust Belt voters who felt the political establishment had cast them aside. While Mr. Trump might not have done the same for his rival, Hillary Clinton, had she won, all Americans must accept the voters’ judgment, and work for the best possible outcome for our country and the world.

It will also be interesting to see if the main Trump supporters spend their time bashing #NeverTrump rather than Hillary and Dems. Will they be magnanimous in their surprising win? Or will they attempt to forge alliances and be welcoming? I will say, though, that bashing those Republicans who proclaimed they would vote Hillary is not out of bounds. It’s one thing to say you’ll hold on to your principles and either not vote for president or pick a 3rd party. It’s entirely something else to vote Hillary, utterly abandoning your principles.

Here’s where it starts getting really fun

What does that mean in practice? First, to hope that Mr. Trump will be a better president than we fear, and to support him when he does the right thing. Mr. Trump will soon command a sprawling federal bureaucracy, sophisticated law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the world’s most powerful military. We have every wish that he will understand that the U.S. system of government is not for or about one person. He alone cannot fix it. The powers of the Oval Office do not exist to punish his enemies, about which he mused as the campaign drew to a close, according to a recent New York Times article.

Funny that the WPEB never bashed Obama for using the powers of the Oval Office to punish his enemies. I’m also looking forwards to the WPEB and the rest of the media bashing Trump when he plays golf.

The new president will face immense and unrelenting challenges from Day One. He inherits a world in which liberal democracy is in retreat and U.S. leadership is doubted. The Middle East is in turmoil, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is growing, Russia and China are flexing their muscles. At home, President Obama bequeaths an economy in generally good health but facing problems: slow growth, stubborn inequality, long-term stress on the federal budget.

So, wait, things are pretty bad all around? I though the era of Obama brought rainbows, unicorns, and puppies? No? The economy is in good health for the rich. It’s the rest who are suffering.

We can’t pretend to optimism that Mr. Trump will suddenly shape more rational responses to these problems than he offered on the campaign trail, nor that he will discover a discipline or wisdom he has yet to display. Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump spoke about jailing Ms. Clinton, suing women who accused him of unwanted sexual advances, neutering the speaker of the House and revoking press freedoms. Per the Times article, he has spoken of creating a super PAC dedicated to political vengeance. He has promised to deport millions, rip up trade agreements, apply religious tests and sabotage international efforts to fight climate change, each of which would hurt many people.

I really can’t argue with the beginning. Some of that is what really concerned Republicans. However, Hillary belongs in jail. Perhaps she and Bill will just head off to live in another country, and we can move on to these criminals. What’s wrong with suing people who have defamed you? So far, there is zero proof of sexual assault. Is it really illegal in Liberal World for a man to come on to a woman? Political vengeance? Let’s hope that was simply election yammering, which happens every election season.

As to the last, let’s hope he follows through, especially on ‘climate change.’ If he wacks Obama’s Clean Power Plan, tears up Obama putting the U.S. (not legally, mind you) in the Paris climate agreement, and reigns in the EPA on climate change, he’ll have earned me as a follower. Now is the time to make good on what he proclaimed.

If he attempts to act on these goals and inclinations, others must rally to the defense of constitutional principles and sound government.

Like how Obama legislated from the White House with his pen and phone? Demanded that the Paris agreement be crafted so he could go around the duly elected U.S. Congress? Sicked the IRS on conservative groups? Those Constitutional principles?

At this point, I’d almost say Trump, with the way he won, has a mandate.

Americans are not and have never been united by blood or creed, but by allegiance to a democratic system of government that shares power, cherishes the rule of law and respects the dignity of individuals. We hope our newly elected president will show respect for that system. Americans must stand ready to support him if he does, and to support the system whether he does or does not.

After almost 8 years of Obama and the way the media, including the Washington Post, ignored the way Obama acted in an opposite manner from that paragraph, the only response is

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/bandwagon/52197-Picard-facepalm-gif-ubif_zpsz5zxfmue.gif

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Explains How Trump Won In A World Where America Has Issues »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Wonky Media | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Global Warming Is Caused By The Expansion Of Hell

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 4:31 pm

Wait, what?

Ocean Warming Data Confirms: Hell is Expanding

Creation Theory: Predictive, Testable Hypothesis 5

I have asked the question before, from a scriptural perspective, could Global Warming be caused by the expansion of Hell? There are several passages of scripture that refer to this phenomenon.

However… It’s easy for scientists, atheists and pretty much everybody to ignore such suggestions, so let’s take a more empirical approach. If hell were expanding then wouldn’t this be manifested by the earth warming from the inside out? If this were the case, would it not be logical that the oceans would be warming from the bottom up?

It turns out that that this is indeed a possible interpretation of the current data available. It didn’t take much Googling to find several recent or current studies of deep ocean water that show measurable temperature rise:

And, yes, there are links provided that attempt to make the case.

And, yes, this is nuts. There article went to the extreme other end from what the Cult of Climastrology preaches.

Read: Good News: Global Warming Is Caused By The Expansion Of Hell »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a cigarette, and you know that fossil fuels companies are EXACTLY like tobacco companies and should have their 1st Amendment rights stripped, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on Trump draining the climate swamp.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Seas Are Rising Faster Than They Ever Have In Human History…In The Future

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 10:30 am

We can always could on Warmists to provide hysterical…as in “loony tunes”, not funny…commentary. The original title of this Mashable piece was “Global warming to cause fastest rate of sea level rise in human history.”

Apparently, they thought that might have been too stupid even for the Cult of Climastrology, so they changed it to

Coastal mega-cities could see more than 6 feet of sea level rise by 2100

Which is equally as stupid, being based on reading a crystal ball, er, computer model.

With global climate talks kicking off in Marrakech, Morocco on Monday, a new study provides a sobering warning about what may happen to coastal mega-cities if decisive global emissions cuts are not made soon.

Based on a scenario in which countries fail to sharply rein in emissions of global warming pollutants, coastal cities are likely to see the fastest rate of sea level rise in human history before the end of the current century, the study found.

Could, may, likely. Very scientific. Really, scaremongering.

What’s more striking is that the study shows that more than more than 90 percent of the world’s coastal areas will see more than the global average sea level rise.

Huh? Let’s unpack that. They’re prognosticating that sea rise will be utterly different in some areas, which would be, you guessed it, the areas where they can fear monger the most.

The study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that if global warming pushes past 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels, about 80 percent of the global coastline may see more sea level rise than the global average.

Double huh? Why would sea level rise be drastically different? Oceans don’t work differently along the coasts where liberal cities reside.

“If the Paris Agreement fails and the worst-case scenario comes to pass, South Florida and the boot of Louisiana would not likely survive this century. Many more places, from Boston to Shanghai, would be gravely threatened,” said Ben Strauss, a sea level rise researcher at the nonprofit group Climate Central who is unaffiliated with the new study.

Keep pushing the non-scientific dogma in an attempt to scare people.

If the climate were to warm by 5 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by 2100 — which is roughly the path we’re on now — New York City could see more than a meter, or about 3.6 feet, of sea level rise with an even higher upper limit, when factoring in sources of uncertainty.

What path? We’ve seen a whopping 1.4 Fahrenheit increase since 1850. Never change, Cultists, never change. You provide so much great material to expose insanity.

And, yes, the article does state that this is all based on computer models.

Read: Good News: Seas Are Rising Faster Than They Ever Have In Human History…In The Future »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

This Election Has “Unthinkably High Stakes” For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 7:21 am

For a change, Vox kinda gets something right, in an unhinged hyperventilating manner

The unthinkably high stakes for climate change that we’ve completely ignored this election
The next president will make decisions that will echo for centuries.

This election season has been unusual in a variety of ways. In one way, however, it’s been entirely normal, just like previous elections.

To wit: Climate change didn’t come up.

This fact barely needs explaining. It is pretty much what you’d expect, given various features of US politics and human psychology (which I get into below).

What uber-Warmists David Roberts gets into fails to mention that people really do not care that much, especially when ‘climate change’ is stacked up against real issues. Perhaps they should care, because the issue is not about science, it is, as I mention ad nauseum, about politics. About control. About taxation. Cost of living. Progressivism (nice Fascism).

The stakes involved are almost unthinkably large. We can say, without hyperbole, that the effects of this election will be felt centuries from now. The potential suffering of millions of people is on the line.

Roberts is right. But, not for the reasons he thinks. It’s because electing Hillary would see, at a minimum, implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement. Provided that they aren’t blocked by the courts, as suits are pending. It’s hard to get a reading on Hillary and her ‘climate change’ beliefs. Sure, she talks about it a bit, and it showed up in the Wikileaks leaks, but, does she really care? Does she believe it is a real issue? Would she push the issue as hard as Obama did? Or, would she simply allow her people to do some stuff while she focused on other things? Is she a Believer, or just a hanger on who has to parrot the lines for the sake of her unhinged leftist base? We just don’t know.

Regardless, even if Hillary doesn’t push the subject hard, we’ll certainly see the EPA, headed by whomever she appoints to the agency, push the envelope with crazy regulations. She’d probably let other agencies run wild, as well. Even this hands off approach would cause lots of economic suffering for those lower and middle class citizens who’d pay the price for the cultish beliefs of Warmists in government.

With Donald Trump, he says he wack all those ‘climate change’ initiatives. He’s all for renewables, but, for good reasons, and he doesn’t want to immediately do away with fossil fuels. the CPP would be terminated and he’d end US involvement in the Paris agreement. All the Obama policies would be toast. Here’s the caveat: so Trump says. He could be full of mule fritters. But, it’d be better taking the chance with this horrible, horrible candidate than with the other horrible, horrible, horrible candidate.

Reading the rest of the article highlights just how much these plans need to be killed. They yammer on about science, but, at the end of the day, it’s about that political power, what happens to our taxes, our cost of living, and the power of the Government over our lives.

Read: This Election Has “Unthinkably High Stakes” For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Elections, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove