Hillary Lost In The Rust Belt Because People Thought She Cared More About Bathrooms Than Jobs

By William Teach November 23, 2016 – 7:17 am

An interesting take on the Democrat Party as a whole

(Washington Post) Back in May, the longtime chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party sent a private memo to leaders in Hillary Clinton’s campaign warning that she was in grave danger of losing not just Ohio but also Pennsylvania and Michigan unless she quickly re-tooled her message on trade. His advice went unheeded.

“I don’t have to make the case that blue collar voters are, to put it mildly, less than enthusiastic about HRC’s positions on trade and the economy,” David Betras wrote in his 1,300 word missive, citing her struggles in recent primaries.

The local chairman feels very strongly now that Clinton could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan if she had just kept her eye on economic issues and not gotten distracted by the culture wars.

“Look, I’m as progressive as anybody, okay? But people in the heartland thought the Democratic Party cared more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job,” he complained. “‘Stronger together’ doesn’t get anyone a job.”

While it’s certainly not the only reason, it certainly resonates. These are the things Democrats worry about, being good little Social Justice Warriors (from their high toned and fancy mansions) and thinking every Democrat voter is the same. No. They worry about jobs.

This mentality is what has motivated Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, who represents Youngstown, to challenge Nancy Pelosi for minority leader. “No Democrat in my area feels like Nancy Pelosi represents them,” Betras said. “She’s like a distant cousin where you really don’t know her. Yeah, we’re related, but… The coastal elites don’t understand the struggle. It’s like we’re foreign to them, and as a result the people here feel like the Democratic Party is now foreign to them.”

“The messages can’t be about ‘job retraining.’ These folks have heard it a million times and, frankly, they think it’s complete and total bulls**t,” he continued. “Talk about policies that will incentivize companies to repatriate manufacturing jobs. Talk about infrastructure … The workers we’re talking about don’t want to run computers; they want to run back hoes, dig ditches (and) sling concrete block. … Somewhere along the line we forgot that not everyone wants to be white collar.”

It’s been shown time and again in poll after poll after poll that the economy and jobs, the bread and butter issues, are always tops. All the other things came way after, but, these are the ones Democrats focus on, and, even when they do focus on jobs, they do it in a pandering fashion, while also talking about retraining for people who’ve lost their jobs due to Democratic Party policies.

The question is, does the Dem Party change? They’ve become so uber-leftist that the fringe are not people like Pelosi. They’re people like Joe Manchin, who is much more moderate. This has lost them vast swaths of elections at not just the federal level, but the state, county, and local levels too boot. Their unhinged Progressive base is what drives them, though, and they care more about things like forcing people to accept the gender confused in the showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms with Other People’s daughters.

Read: Hillary Lost In The Rust Belt Because People Thought She Cared More About Bathrooms Than Jobs »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Trump Walking Back His Promise To Pull Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement?

By William Teach November 23, 2016 – 7:04 am

Tuesday, Mr. Trump went to the NY Times building to talk with the DNC leadership, er, reporters and stuff, and had this to say

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

Now, Trump has specifically promised to pull out of the Paris Climate agreement many times during the campaign. But, as Allahpundit notes

It could be that he’s just being prudential. There’s no sense binding himself to a position on a major issue, campaign promise or no, before he’s been fully briefed and his cabinet’s debated it. Same goes for the Iran nuclear deal, which he’s also promised to abandon in the past buthas been coy about lately. He’s going to take his time before committing to a major unilateral move, particularly one that’ll anger American allies. Another possibility: The guy loves good press and enjoys pleasing his audience, and he knows what an audience of New York Times editors wants to hear about climate change. He couldn’t resist pandering to them. Put him back in front of an arena of 10,000 screaming fans and he’ll say something different.

The thing here is that I read that bit as being about not just rethinking the Paris agreement, but Hotcoldwetdry altogether. Is he playing coy or moderating his position? If he moderates on this, he’ll lose quite a bit of capital with the people who voted for him. He also told Michael Sheer, NY Times White House correspondent, that he would look at it, meaning the Paris agreement specifically, later in the meeting.

We also supposedly get this, but, it’s not in the transcript that I can find

Despite his talk about hoaxes from China, I have no problem with this. I’ve written tons of times that Mankind does play a small part. We’ll soon find out what Trump really meant and what he didn’t. Will he solidify my election season belief that he wasn’t to be trusted, or will he do the majority of things he promised?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is Trump Walking Back His Promise To Pull Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Special California Snowflakes Are Really Attempting This Whole Secession Thing

By William Teach November 22, 2016 – 4:23 pm

Remember when it was racist and evil and anti-democracy when Texas floated this type of thing? Good time, good times (via Twitchy)

Anti-Trump secessionists filed formal paperwork Monday launching their petition drive aimed at separating California from the union by first putting the issue before voters on the 2018 ballot.

A petition submitted by the Yes California Independence Campaign calls for repealing language in the state constitution that describes California as an “inseparable part” of the nation and holding a vote on independence on March 13, 2019.

It was also mean and racist when parts of California wanted to secede from California to become their own state (there have been many plans on splitting California into two, four, and even six states). But, hey, this is a great idea!

https://twitter.com/alex_forreal/status/800816993242710017

Even more fun, how would they export all their products and import so much else? They’d need all sorts of trade deals. Oh, hey, some of Ca’s water comes from out of state. Cut off. They’d be on their own in the event of a natural disaster, and, let’s face it, the whole state is a disaster waiting to happen. Literally.

What about all the food that would need to be imported? Hey, they grow a lot of lettuce and nuts (sic), but, quite a bit more needs to be imported. So does all that fossil fuels. And other things.

Anyhow, grab the popcorn.

Read: Special California Snowflakes Are Really Attempting This Whole Secession Thing »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a great farming area that would be perfect to raise food for fuel, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Proof Positive, with a post on your quote du jour.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

How To Talk To Loved Ones Who Voted The Other Way

By William Teach November 22, 2016 – 11:03 am

I told you I lots of these in the hopper

Here’s what we learned after the ugliest presidential campaign in modern times.

The voters you blame, whose ballots — for Clinton or Trump — so mystify and offend you, are not a distant, unfamiliar America. They are sitting across the dinner table, or the office cubicle, or the bed. They are your parents, your siblings, your friends.

Who wants to have that tough conversation, about why they voted as they did and about how it makes you feel? Just about nobody. So we avoid it. But like it or not, these people are in your life. The holidays are upon us. And deep down, you may actually want to have this talk. You may need to have this talk.

So we put together a guide for how to do it. We consulted with a professional: Liz Joyner, the executive director of The Village Square, an organization that facilitates these kinds of intimate, difficult conversations.

While it is an attempt to bring together all, in reality, it’s attempting to set ground rules to keep liberals from going apeshit during the day, creating a situation where they’ve pissed off all their friends and relatives and either sit there in silence during during, storm out, or create a really uncomfortable atmosphere. Because that’s what they do. They cannot separate the personal from the political.

Look at the last question: 19. Do you still like me? Considering the way so many hardcore Leftists feel, that might not be the best question to ask one.

Read: How To Talk To Loved Ones Who Voted The Other Way »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Are Freaking Out Over The Possibility Of Questioning “High Risk” Immigrants

By William Teach November 22, 2016 – 7:05 am

The potential pick of Chris Kobach for head of DHS has sent Liberals into apoplexy, starting with Christopher Hayes, on his very low rated show. The entire 8 minute video is worth a listen as to how Liberals have hissy fits over the notion that non-citizens from countries known to have Islamic extremism should be, get this, vetted. The Kobach point starts at 1:41, but, especially relevant at 2:50

Over to the NBC News

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has already laid out his plan for overhauling of the nation’s immigration system, and it includes many of president-elect Donald Trump’s most prominent — and controversial — campaign priorities, including reinstating an immigrant tracking system and questioning “high risk” immigrants about their views on Sharia law and jihad. (snip)

Kobach’s plan for DHS also echoes Trump’s campaign-trail pledges in his proposal to “add extreme vetting questions for high-risk aliens — question them regarding Sharia Law, jihad, equality of men and women, the United States Constitution,” as well as plans to reduce the number of Syrian refugees accepted into the U.S. to zero.

I fail to see the problem. We vet the heck out of people applying for citizenship regardless of where they come from. The US should have control over people who want to enter this nation. You’d think, from all their Vagina Whispering, that liberals would be for policies that keep people who treat women as 2nd class citizens out.

It includes one key departure from the Obama Administration’s policy on immigration enforcement — the portion of the document visible in the picture seems to suggest he would redefine “criminal alien” as “any alien arrested for any crime, and any gang member,” a vastly expanded definition that could result in any undocumented immigrant arrested for any reason — but not convicted — being deported.

What’s the problem? Oh, right, Liberal World. Nor where these two alone. The LA Times, Huffington Post, ABC News, Politico, Daily Beast, and so many others are Very Concerned, and the Leftist Muslim extremist supporters in the comments are freaking out.

Trump should threaten to send all the potential Islamic extremists to the fancy and high toned neighborhoods stocked with Democrat big wigs, see how they respond.

Read: Liberals Are Freaking Out Over The Possibility Of Questioning “High Risk” Immigrants »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Is Suddenly Very Concerned Over Whether The President Can Tolerate Dissent

By William Teach November 22, 2016 – 6:36 am

No, not that president. The Editorial Board is worried about the soon to be

Can Trump tolerate dissent

IN THE glow of his election victory Nov. 8, after months of a foul and bitter campaign, Donald Trump invoked a familiar and reassuring message. “Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division,” he said. “I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all of Americans, and this is so important to me.” It was important for the nation, too.

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump grew infuriated when the cast of the Broadway hit “Hamilton” delivered a message aloud to Vice President-elect Mike Pence after curtain call, appealing to the new administration to be inclusive….

OK, you probably know the story on that by now. Here’s the thing: there’s a time and place for everything. Propriety. This was not the time nor place. Perform the show. Afterwards, go to the press. Doing it on-stage makes it all about themselves, and drags everyone into the kerfuffle. People paid good money. Consider Kanye West. He went on a rant in support of Trump on stage (along with Beyonce, Jay Z, and others). Not the time nor place. Play the concert. Give people what they paid their money for. There’s just too much mixing of the personal with the political.

Furthermore, Free Speech doesn’t mean people can’t respond. The 1st Amendment does mean that Trump, though he hasn’t taken office yet, cannot penalize or threaten to penalize their narcissistic protest.

These kind of outbursts helped fuel Mr. Trump’s political rise; he has always been thin-skinned and prone to rapid-fire insults. But there is something new and deeply worrisome about the weekend’s tweet storm: Mr. Trump is soon to be president of the United States. His words matter.

Yes, words matter. Things like “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” would set the WPEB off if Trump said it.

What is so disturbing here is not just Mr. Trump’s hotheaded Twitter habits, but rather his casual disregard for freedom of expression and visceral intolerance of criticism.

If only the WPEB had been as worked up when Mr. Obama targeted Conservative groups via the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Obama has targeted Congressional Republicans, the Supreme Court, private citizens, and private corporations. He’s targeted Christian churches. He’s lectured citizens for daring to not hold the same opinion as he does. He’s attempted to get Fox News thrown out of the White House press pool. He’s said nasty things about Americans who fail to believe what he believes. And he’s allowed his people to do this all under his watch, without attempting to stop the assaults on freedom.

Where was the WPEB? MIA.

Mr. Trump’s weekend tweets carried a tone of intimidation unfit for the presidency. The actor’s message and the television satire were examples of free expression. Whether Mr. Trump thinks they were rude or not funny is not relevant. He must embrace what it means to be president of all Americans: showing tolerance toward those who criticize him, now and for years to come.

Again, where was the WPEB these past years in the Era of Obama? Where was the WPEB when Obama used the power of the Executive Office to intimidate people across America? Where were they when he refused to show tolerance?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Is Suddenly Very Concerned Over Whether The President Can Tolerate Dissent »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If You Need To Know How To Talk To Your Climate Denying Uncle Pete On Thanksgiving, Here’s Your Advice

By William Teach November 21, 2016 – 5:12 pm

If you thought this whole advice for Liberals on “how to act like a civil adult on Thanksgiving” thing was just a miniscule thing, au contraire. I have numerous articles saved to Pocket, and may never get around to them all. Here we have the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists driving drunkily down the road

Thanksgiving advice: How to deal with climate change denying Uncle Pete

“Birds of a feather flock together,” so I am sure that nearly all of those reading this article accept the main findings of climate science. Yet many people don’t. Instead, they believe a variety of climate myths.

These include claims that the world isn’t warming; or if warming is occurring, it is natural and not human-caused; or volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than we humans do. I know none of you believes these myths, but it seems that almost everybody has an unpleasant relative–call him Uncle Pete–who comes to dinner. Pete spoils the family mood by making these false claims, which he found on talk radio or the Internet. I’ll tell you in a moment why some of the most frequently repeated claims are just plain wrong. I won’t have time to cover all of them, and I recommend the website skepticalscience.com for the whole story. It’s a collection of the most commonly heard climate myths, and why they are all dead wrong. Skepticalscience.com is your key to refuting your own Uncle Pete.

Oh, good, send people over to a heavily partisan website for confirmation bias and talking points to annoy your family (no mention of how to keep from going apoplectic when they point out you drove a fossil fueled vehicle to Thanksgiving dinner).

By burning fossil fuels, we humans have taken over the role of deciding what the climate in coming decades will be. We are no longer passive spectators in the global climate change pageant. We have become the actors. Science provides convincing evidence that the heat-trapping gases produced by human activities are the main cause of the warming observed in recent decades. This aspect of climate science is very firmly established, going back to definitive laboratory experiments in the 1850s. Those experiments showed that carbon dioxide and other gases, present in small quantities in the atmosphere, have powerful heat-trapping properties. In recent decades, the fingerprint of the observed warming, such as how it varies with altitude and geography and season, matches the pattern that we expect from adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. We’ve found the enemy. He is us.

Yet, strangely, members of the Cult of Climastrology mostly refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. Weird, eh?

For many skeptics or contrarians like Pete, the climate change issue is not a science topic at all. For Pete, it is simply an opportunity for the government, and liberals and environmentalists, to make rules and regulations, to interfere with markets, and to diminish the personal freedom of individuals. For Pete, it is just one more way for the authority of the state to control the lives of citizens. This view has nothing to do with science, and no argument based only on science can change it.

Interestingly, every single policy prescription from Warmists reinforces that this is all about government.

Uncle Pete has a high opinion of the free market.

Obviously, that makes Uncle Pete a hater and he wants to destroy the Earth. Let’s jump back a few paragraphs

There are similar convincing refutations of all the other common climate myths. That’s why many studies have shown that about 97 percent of the climate scientists who are most active in publishing research on climate change agree that the observed recent warming is real and serious and overwhelmingly human-caused.

If you’re trotting out “consensus”, particularly the massively debunked 97% schtick, you’ve shown that this is not science, it’s opinion.

Read: If You Need To Know How To Talk To Your Climate Denying Uncle Pete On Thanksgiving, Here’s Your Advice »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Holidays | 31 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 21, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil old school fossil fueled, which should have been banned all the way back then to stop climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Dems needing to root out their own extremists.

I forgot to mention, that in honor of all the food we’ll eat on Thursday, it’s farming week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Thank Goodness, You Can Now Set Boundaries With Your Family On Thanksgiving

By William Teach November 21, 2016 – 10:28 am

This kind of schtick has become more and more prevalent over the past few years, as Democrats apparently need someone to explain to them How To Act Civilized With Your Family And Friends On Thanksgiving (we see these recycled at Christmas, as well).

I especially enjoy the use of the angry pointing guy. It made me think this would be a Concern Trolling article making fun of liberals. Alas, no

It’s the holiday season, the point at which the real intensity of the sh*tshow that is 2016 will come home to roost between the roasted brussels sprouts and the pumpkin pie. Even if you have a family that entirely shares your views, it’s still possible to have an uncomfortable festive season as they hash out their particular ideas; but in this climate, it’s more likely than ever that you’ll be facing down opponents over the crisp tablecloth. Those relatives who hold anti-LGBT views, racist ideas, and idiotic beliefs they picked up from fake articles on Facebook will be empowered and out in force. How are you going to survive talking about politics with your family this Thanksgiving? Boundaries are here to help.

Political arguments during the holidays can, particularly in these times, seem like a good idea; if it’s not your job to convert one of your nearest and dearest to a better point of view, whose job is it? And that’s completely legitimate — but your duty to make the world a better place, one relative at a time, also needs to coincide with your duty to yourself and respecting them.

And Democrats need someone to explain this whole respect and civility thing. Here’s the overview of The Plan

  1. Figure Out What You Will And Will Not Discuss
  2. Vocalize Your Boundaries Beforehand — And Stick To Them
  3. Plan For Escalation
  4. Know That Some People Will Push It
  5. … And Have A Plan For When They Keep Going
  6. Have A Go-To Exit Phrase
  7. Monitor How You’re Feeling Throughout The Night
  8. Know Your Breaking Point

Number two is my favorite, where I can see liberals walking into the house and haranguing people right from the get go about what they refuse to be allowed to be discussed. Only in Liberal World do people plan out a get together with friends and family in this manner. It’d probably be easier for everyone if they just stayed home in their Safe Space bubble, playing with coloring books and watching …. well, is there anything on TV that a liberal can’t find something to complain about?

Read: Thank Goodness, You Can Now Set Boundaries With Your Family On Thanksgiving »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Holidays | 23 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove