Robert Cialdini is protecting Pedophiles:

We all know who is helping the SJW's to reframe their messaging, Scott Adams exposed him dead on.  But now, after California SJW's, I mean California Democrats, legalized child prostitution, guess what is happening?  It's being reframed as "Protecting Children from their traffickers".  This is ridiculous and stupid of course, as there was nothing in the bill about going after said traffickers, only that underaged people can not be arrested for it, it's unclear if the adults still can be arrested or not.

Either way, to reframe this as "Protecting Children" is sick and wrong, we need to push for this dangerous propagandist's arrest, because if he will work to protect pedophiles, what lines will he NOT cross?

We should push Trump to jail this man.

Why I want China to enter NATO

Mind you, this only works if Russia enters NATO as well, entering one of these two without the other is asking for World War 3.

China and the US have a tumultuous, love-hate relationship that swings both ways.  Right now, they also see us as useful idiots and to be fair, they kinda have a right to, given how we had three presidents in a row who bent over for them and seemingly enjoyed what resulted.  And now that they're used to it, getting them to respect us likely isn't so simple,  at least in the near term, telling them they can't take advantage of us anymore will likely annoy them.  But we can still ally with them if we use NATO.

See, Russia is their closest ally, and Russia will very soon be our ally, with NATO being re-purposed to fight terrorism, and with both Russia and China having problems with terrorism, there's certainly room for a couple of Super Powers, what with the rise of Daesh/ISIS and Boko Haram, not to mention Obama Bin Laden sending Guantanamo Terrorists all over the world in an attempt to "close" it, including my wife's home country of Ghana.

And the Chinese and Russians have plenty of incentive to join even without the counter-terrorism thing, as NATO has been historically used to bully the two countries, with NATO bases surrounding them, pinning them to within their borders, lest they "accidentally" set off a war.  This would also benefit the NATO countries, as NATO can then legally build bases in Russia and China, forcing them to stay in and never break their "NATO alliance.

Or not.....they probably would see that trap coming and set conditions of their memberships to counter it, but it would allow us to ally with China in spite of tensions, and I can't think of a reason NOT to support that.

The hypocrisy and myopia of the Media's Anti-Putin propaganda

I remember the media's coverage of Putin before the Iraq war, and if you can believe it, it was so opposite of what it is now.  Back then, he was the savior of Russia and a great ally to the US.  Funny how, the moment he called bullshit on one of our wars, that all changed.  But this blog isn't about that, it's about the way in which the Media lies on Putin, while downplaying our own leaders' similar political moves.  For example:

Khordokhovsky was Russia's Blago

Rod Blagoyavich, for those unaware, is absolutely guilty of the corruption for which he was charged. The problem is, no charges happened until after he badmouthed Barack Obama.  The same is largely true of Khordokhovsky, with some key differences:

-Khordokhovsky's crime was far more serious.  He embezzled a high percentage of Russia's total GDP during the Yeltsin era.  Before this, Russia already had tons of crime and corruption troubles, it got worse after Khordokhovsky's crime.

-Blago was being obnoxious and a bit offensive, but what Mikhail Khordokhovsky said about Putin was very serious, and downright defamatory if wrong (which, to be fair, I am not sure if it is or not).  Not to mention it was rather ironic of him to accuse Putin of accepting bribes after Mikhail himself had embezzled money from the government and participated in countless bribes.

-Putin did EVENTUALLY pardon Mikhail, Blago will have no such mercy from Obama.

And sure, Putin IS wrong for not jailing Mikhail before this point, but it's not the anti-free speech story that you were told by the MSM.

What "Pussy Riot" did is, at best, a class A Misdemeanor in the US, netting you at least as much time here in the states

Quick, go into a church, get on a loud speaker, and disrupt services while refusing to leave.  You'll be VERY lucky if you don't get a felony for that.  It's not only disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct, but it can even be considered trespassing if you are asked to leave but don't.

Well, that's what Cunt Riot did, and if you think that should be legal, well, I disagree, but at least admit that our own laws also prohibit these things and they are far from unenforced.

So no, they weren't jailed for protesting Putin, they were jailed for being obnoxious, disruptive, and refusing to leave.   In fact, this is exactly why church goers protested a Pussy Riot tribute, it's not their love for Mr. Putin, but their hate for obnoxious brats.

Crimea, Ukraine, yadda yadda

Devil is in the details, but this youtube video describes it well, suffice to say, it is pretty much the opposite of what you have heard.

Alleged murders of political enemies

Of course, while none of this has been proven, none of it can be ruled out either.  While, in fairness, proving a negative is difficult, when it isn't impossible, let's just assume it's all true for the sake of argument.

Firstly, Andrew Breitbart, Obama's most notorious critic, suddenly drops dead.  There were others, but Breitbart is the most known example.

And neither Obama nor Putin have a list as long as the infamous Clinton Body Count, which, by the way, DID NOT end with Seth Rich, as a woman investigating a pedo ring in Haiti, that allegedly ties to the Clintons, also recently died.

And sure, this is bad also, but it means Putin, at worst, is ON PAR with our politicians as far as murdering opposition goes.

My own opinion

While Putin is no worse than our politicians, he doesn't appear to be a whole lot better either, he's anti-PC, as are most Russians, so there's that.  But overall, he comes off to me not as a tyrant or a great leader, but as a flawed human being running a country.

No, Hillary's "mistakes" didn't cost her the election, Trump made his own mistakes.

People in the Hitlery Rotten Cunton camp like to say she lost because she ignored Wisconsin, barely campaigned in Michigan, didn't talk policy much, etc.  Don't get me wrong, these were mistakes, and they did hurt her with voters, but it's not as if Trump didn't make his own mistakes.  Here are some examples.

Stop and Frisk

Prior to this, Trump had been polling 18-20% with Black voters for about 2 weeks straight, which is near impossible for a republican to do.  After this, he dropped to 5, and didn't come up much from that.  Sure, the exit polls on the 8th may have underestimated his actual vote, so maybe instead of 8%, he got, say, 10-12%, with a lot of Black Voters staying home because they didn't like Hillary either.  And yeah, that's much better than republicans before him, but it still didn't reach the level it was through most of September, after "Stop and Frisk" this was not possible anymore.

For full context, Stop and Frisk is largely seen as a racial profiling, racist cop tactic.  It may not be, and I'm certain Trump didn't mean it that way, but that is how it was seen.  And expressing intent to use it in minority neighborhoods (even if not exclusively there) was just NOT a good idea.

Muslim Ban

Granted, this spiked his PRIMARY poll numbers, at least in the immediate sense.  However, it was also used as propaganda to paint him as a bigot, even in the primaries.  And in the general election, it had a much more pronounced effect.  Sure, he minimized the damage by pivoting to Extreme Vetting, but if nothing else, it still served as Confirmation Bias about his alleged "racism" and "bigotry", plus, it's kinda hard to NOT see it as Islamophobia.

Sure, there's reason to believe that Islam hasn't ironed out its problems as well as the older religions have, and this no doubt started that conversation, but this is about whether it costed him votes, not whether it started a needed conversation.

Failure to reach out to gamers

Sure, there's that infamous 2012 tweet, but compare it to Hillary's entire anti-gamer history, now add onto that her embrace of Brianna Wu, her endorsing the media narrative that GamerGate/Gamers are misogynists who harass and rape women, and the fact that Anita Sarkeesian endorsed her.  Trump had a MAJOR opportunity to win the youth vote, by a WIDE MARGIN, he failed.  Granted, he still won more of the youth vote than most republicans, but still, 65% is better than 45%, no?

Failure to make a "Regressive Left" Speech

Granted, after Hillary's Alt Right speech, this would have been seen as tit for tat, but that probably wouldn't have mattered much.  Painting Hillary as Regressive Left would have been a LOT easier than painting Trump as Alt Right.  Not to mention, the Regressive Left, unlike the Alt Right, is actually ruining lives and and even getting people killed.  To the former, he could have cited examples of people railroaded by the media's SJW talking points, who lost jobs, and in some cases, went to jail on the "Listen and Believe" mentality for stuff they are NOT guilty of.  How many Gamers and Frat Houses have had their lives ruined over the last 2 years?  To this, he could have persuaded the public on why Opening the Libel Laws would be a good thing.

To the latter, most examples are from Europe, but they are there.  Plus it's NOT like Regressives didn't defend the Mateen family.

So what did cost Hillary the election?

Here are the reasons:

1. She was an SJW.  Sure, Trump didn't exploit this weakness very much, but it's not as if it helped her.  Many, including myself, voted for Trump based on this.

2. Trump didn't tow the party line, Clinton DID.  This made her look like a typical, partisan hack DC insider.  You can simplify this by saying "status quo", but there's more to it than that.  It's not just that this was status quo, eating every day is status quo, but nobody cares about that.  It's because these are the specific aspects of the status quo that people hate, and she went full bore on these.

3. WW3 posturing.  Yes, the average American doesn't like Putin, but it's doubtful that a whole lot of them want war with the guy, Russia isn't some small, 3rd world country that we can just bully, and Americans are well aware of this.

4. She ran a "California" campaign.  And sure, assuming she didn't commit massive voter fraud, which is doubtful, this won her the popular vote.  But, rightly or wrongly, the president isn't elected that way.  Trump countered this with a Rust Belt campaign.  This didn't hurt him much in the red states due to his running as a republican, but allowed him to take blue states from Clinton.  This was likely his plan all along, and she fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

We must fight and not let up #NeverRomney

Apparently, Trump is ONCE AGAIN leaning towards Romney.

Know why?  2 reasons:

1. We keep letting up every time we think Romney is out.
2. Mike Pence and Reince Priebus

So here is what we need to do:

1. DM High Profile Trump supporters who oppose Romney, and have open DMs on twitter.  These include, but are not limited to:

-Mike Cernovich (@cernovich)
-Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet)
-@YoungDems4Trump

2. Aggressively tweet at @realDonaldTrump and @transition2017 that we, the PEOPLE not only oppose Mitt Romney, but will actively work against Trump in 2020 if Mitt is selected (if you don't really mean it, keep it to yourself, they have to at least believe we are serious).

3. Demand the resignation of Mike Pence and Reince Preibus.  This last part may not actually happen, but it will at least send a signal that we are onto them and do not appreciate their establishment style sabotage of our grassroots movement.

This is especially important if you are a gamer and want the libel laws opened.  Think establishment hacks won't try to sabotage that?

My personal opinion on the Trump-Carrier deal.

While the exact number of jobs Trump saved seems to go all over the place, depending on who you ask, everyone pretty much agrees, he saved some, but not all of the jobs.

And beyond that, the details become even less clear.  What IS clear is that Trump saved a number of jobs, while not taking the hard line he promised.  There is indeed legit concern with this, although Trump also campaigned on being a deal maker, willing to make concessions where necessary.

Still, I believe he could have gotten a better deal than he did, but with that said, he also did more for american workers over thanksgiving than Barack Obama has done over the course of 8 years.  It, wasn't spectacular, but it was certainly a massive improvement over the status quo.  I give him a B-.  Still, Obama and Bush got pretty much Straight F's, so, you know, it's a whole lot better, even if it's not where I'd like it to be.

The problem with Tribal Sovereignty

For those unaware, the Dakota Access Pipeline drama is little more than a testament to the failure of Tribal Sovereignty.

What do I mean by this?  See, Tribal Sovereignty is basically what it sounds like, Indian Reservations are basically their own countries, accept that they don't have to print their own money.  But they get to write and enforce their own laws, while developing their own infrastructure.  The main problem is that a lot of tribes, including the Sioux, apparently don't get that with great freedom comes great responsibility.

For instance, when you moved out of your parents' house, you probably ended up paying your own bills, getting your own job, cleaning and maintaining your place (be it through a paid service or not), and many other things that your parents used to do for you.  It seems the Sioux tribe didn't get this memo though, and they're not alone.  Reservations frequently complain when the government does little to nothing for them as a side effect of their Tribal Sovereignty, and this pipeline issue is no different.

See, apparently, the Sioux do not have any idea how to pump, mine, clean, or trade for water.  So when a pipeline came anywhere near any water that may somehow run through their reservation, they had and still have no idea what to do about it.  The concern seems to be that the water may be either evaporated and/or contaminated by the pipeline due to heat or leaks.  And, having little idea how to run a sovereign territory properly (and not much desire to learn), they decided that the only solution is to block it.

There are other options, all of which would be obvious to anyone who's ever run a government with any level of competence, but keep in mind that these people, and many other tribes, think that sovereignty means "independence minus the responsibility", so it should come as no surprise that their proposed solution is so rigid and destructive.

If I, sitting at my keyboard can propose, say, trading for clean water, building a water cleaning facility (creating jobs in the process), pumping water out of the ground, or even, you know, working with the pipeline company to seal and insulate the pipeline itself near the water, then it should be rather simple for a governing body of any level of competence, to come up with a workable solution, probably even a better one than I listed.  But, again, these people have a mentality that the feds screwed them over by giving them the very sovereignty that they asked for.

This could, potentially, change for the better, but it's a mentality that they have held for so long, that I just wouldn't count on it.

And frankly, if their own lack of personal responsibility is going to cause them to screw with our way of life, something has to give, they either need to change their attitudes, or give up the sovereignty that they keep complaining about, and grow up.

But, Muh Heritage, whitey stole our lands

Well, yes, and unfortunately racism only made this problem worse.  But the truth is, take a good look at human history.  From Medieval Europe, to Rome, To Genghis Kahn, the Ghana Empire, and so on.  What do you see?  Endless conquest is what.  And guess what?  It was no different for the Native Americans.

They killed and conquered EACH OTHER for Millennia before the White Man arrived.  In fact, Squanto, one of the most famous, was himself from a conquered tribe.  Some people even think that this is the main reason he allied with the White Settlers (despite white captors mistreating him in the past), and worked with them to undermine Wampanoag influence in what is now New England, because he was mad at his Wampanoag conquerors.  This is far from proven, of course, but what IS established, is that the  Wampanoag had, in fact, conquered many tribes, including the Patuxet, from which Squanto came.

Mostly, the reason you don't hear about this is because a massive plague, circa 1616, wiped out most of their population, and with it, most of their history.  Though, some evidence still lingers, and we can probably blame Political Correctness for downplaying it.

The point is, while the white man did steal their lands and murder a lot of their people, they were doing this to themselves long before white people arrived.  Admittedly, racism played a role in some of this, but looking at human history, it's likely that all the racism did was maybe speed up the process.  We were probably going to take it whether we were against them or not, because that's what human beings have done throughout history.

In fact, I'll close by pointing out that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IS CONQUERED LAND.  There are zero exceptions to this, we don't have to like it, but if we don't accept it as fact, we will only self-destructively beat ourselves up.  I mean, what are we gonna do, engage in a bloody and destructive war with all the world's governments because centuries and millennia ago, they unfairly overpowered and conquered people?  Yeah..........I'm sure that'll show them..................

A splash of Cold Water

Want to know why I stopped blogging during the election?

Partly, it was because Candace Owens gave me an opportunity with Degree 180.  But she gave up hope and went into hiding. So why didn't I restart my blog?

Well, to be blunt, it was because of:

BLATANT AND FLAGRANT STUPIDITY AND STUBBORNNESS

Take for instance, this reply from one Dagny Delingquint when shown an effective way to swing Black Trump haters:

In 1966, when Don King was arrested, Racial Profiling was perfectly legal.  While we can't say for sure what happened, it is highly likely that Profiling at least played a part in his arrest.  To blow off this reframe with sarcasm, then cry about losing the black vote, is stupid, at BEST.  But the hole goes much deeper than idiots blowing off persuasion wins.

See, I've been on the internet long enough to know that the alt right are, in fact, trolls, and not actual racists.  However, I have no doubt that the poor optics may attract a few actual racists, even if they are a fringe, and disavowed by the rest.  But the poor optics ALSO mean that the Alt-Right LOOKS RACIST.  It's true.

And despite telling this to several people, the response was always the same, "LOL this won't stop Trump"  But here's the thing, it ALMOST DID.

Here's Michigan:

Wisconsin:

Pennsylvania:

And Florida:

Without those VERY CLOSE states, he would be at 231, in other words, a LOSS, and an overwhelming one at that.  So it was electoral landslide, that was very close to being a landslide the OTHER WAY.  Not to mention he narrowly lost New Hampshire:

Minnesota:

And Maine (though he did win a split Elector):

How many people From New Hampshire, Maine, or Minnesota saw some idiot troll post a Hitler meme and voted against him?  Mind you, I'm not saying it was a whole lot, I'm saying it only had to be just a little to have swung one of these states.  That's not even getting into how many people, already believing Trump was a racist with racist supporters, saw this crap and couldn't bring themselves to believe otherwise, in part, because of seeing this stuff.  For many, it might have been JUST ENOUGH to keep them from having an open mind, and a few such people could have easily been in said states.

But of course "No, my poor optics shit posting won't stop Trump" well guess what, it almost did, and people didn't listen, and now, their own God Emporer has disavowed them:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

And you know what, they still won't listen:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan

The deal is this, yes, the Alt-Right isn't racist, but they look like it.  They refuse to stop looking it because that would make them cucks or something.

Here's a hint:

-It's NOT just the SJW's and Regressive Left who think Swastikas and Hitler stuff are racist, it's normies and most anti-SJW's too.

Learn it, adapt and move on.  If you can't, you frankly deserve to labelled as a hate group and ostracized, because at this point, you did it to yourselves.  Listen or don't, it's the truth.

Hillary Clinton Will Be a disaster for gamers (mirror)

History of Calling Gamers Violent

And by this, I don't mean she made one stupid tweet, no, she actually has a history of this stuff.  When she was a Senator, she famously promoted a law to ban violent video games, and for full context, here's her statement on the matter:

Far from an isolated incident, she also campaigned against video games when she ran for president in 2008.  And, in fact, the crap started WAY BEFORE she became a senator.  How far back?  Far enough that she pushed her husband Bill to do something about it when he was president, complaining primarily about Mortal Kombat.

And yes, to address the elephant in the room, I'm aware that Trump made a dumbass tweet ONE TIME about video games.  And sure, that's bad, but one tweet, versus Clinton's entire history?  Ask yourself which of those is worse.

Sounds just like Anita Sarkeesian at times

Remember when Hillary famously tweeted that alleged rape victims should be believed without evidence?  Let's look past the hypocrisy, or the fact that if you have any sons or nephews, she will be erasing their futures.  What she said may sound eerily familiar.  A very similar thing has been being pushed by none other than Anita herself.  Sure, it wasn't word for word "Listen and Believe", but contextually, I don't know how else to interpret "You have a right to be heard, you have a right to be believed."

Is rumored to have funded Anita and Zoe

There are rumors going about that say Clinton  has funded these two.  Unfortunately, I was not able to find evidence to back it up, however, the rumor does say a lot by itself.  Why?  Let's put it this way, would any rumor that Trump funded these two have legs?  No?  Exactly.

Now it's possible that Google, M$(Bing) and Yahoo simply censored the evidence out of their search engines, but I'm comfortable leaving you with the fact that a rumor about Hillary doing this is believable, but a rumor about Trump doing so is not.

Is friends with the same Press that continually slanders us

While it is indeed literally true that GamerGate =/= Gamer, that ignores the most basic rule of propaganda - perception.  Perception matters more than reality, at least if you're pushing an agenda, and when they say GamerGate, the audience hears the word "gamer".  So GamerGate is absolutely a proxy with which the MSM wishes to slander us gamers.  That said, here are Hillary's connections, as exposed by Guccifer 2.

That's not even getting into how they ask her softball questions, while trying to ruin Trump over everything he says, even if it's innocuous, her constant SJW talking points, or how Trump has been called a "misogynist" by Hillary and others based on the same flawed logic that they use to call us gamers misogynists.

And sure, none of that directly ties her to the GamerGate nonsense, but if she's friends with these sorts of people, and sounds like them at times, what does that say about her?

Desert Bus - A Video Game made to Mock Hillary's anti-gamer stuff

To be fair Janet Reno shares the guilt in this one, but even still.  The fact that Hillary was at least part of the reason this parody game was made is just one more reason why gamers may want to consider not voting for her.  To make a long story short, Clinton said video games should stop being about fun, and start being about life.  Janet Reno then pushed this agenda on her behalf.

So Penn and Teller made such a game in the most sarcastic way possible, albiet, with unusually low (zero) traffic, lower than normal (45 mph) top speed, and no visible view of Vegas on the Horizon, even when you're about to reach it.

Conclusion

The thing is, I'm actually holding back here.  I COULD, for instance, talk abut her ties to Katherine Clark, who HAS been directly linked to Anita and Zoe, her anti-video game push in 2005, when she was a senator, or countless other anti-gamer atrocities she has committed.

There's simply too much stuff to cover it all in one article, but hopefully, where she stands on the issue is clear at this point.  And if you think she'll be harmless, tell that to the Brits and the Canadians, who get profiled as rapists for playing video games, because SJW's already came to power in their countries.

Trump and Sanders Policy similarities

Some people are trying to unite the Trump and Bernie people, and you know what?  I think I like that idea.  A good place to start is with common ground, and what better common ground is to start on than policy similarities?

Anti-TPP / Fair Trade

Both agree very strongly that unfettered free trade is harming our economy and cost working class people jobs.  This is the main reason that they both won Michigan, a state devastated by NAFTA, a Bill Clinton policy.

Anti-War

Both want Daesh gone, but otherwise, prefer spending our tax dollars domestically.  Unlike Hillary, who wants to continue Bush's reckless War-Hawk policies, oh looky, here she is embracing the guy

Also neither Trump nor Bernie liked the Iraq War.  Granted, Trump was mostly on the fence before we went, but at least it didn't take him until 2008 to speak out against it, unlike Hillary.  

Friendlier US-Russia relations

Trump has been endorsed by Putin and vowed to not only work with him against Daesh, but also to seek an alliance.  Bernie has been more vague, only saying that he doesn't view Russia in the negative light that some do, but that's still better than Hillary, who has vowed to shoot Russian War Planes out of the sky.  Sure, maybe she didn't mean it, but it's clear either way that she will make our relations with Russia worse.

Against Entitlement Reform

Granted, this is a side effect of Trump deviating from the republican platform.  Still, while he won't expand them the way Bernie will, you can expect the safety net programs to remain under a Trump Presidency.

Pro- 2nd Ammendment

This is mostly because Vermont tends to be a pro-gun liberal state, but still...

Both want to change a rigged system

I don't wanna hear any crap about "rules", fuck the Shadow Government's rules, they exist to allow it to continue being a Shadow Government.  But yeah, this is very important, the Donor Class, helped out by party leaders, effectively control Washington DC.  We can not trust anyone until they get elected, but honestly, if anyone can change the system, it is these two.

If you ever hear people complain that the two parties are the same, it's largely because the system is rigged to force a single set of policies on ALL politicians, that needs to change.

Was Potty Gate ANOTHER Master Persuader Move?

So Trump recently got some heat for condemning a NC bathroom law, even though he said was also against the idea of transgender bathrooms.

He basically said he felt NC shouldn't have made any laws one way or another,  It does avoid being politically correct, since he stopped short of embracing anything beyond status-quo, but boy did he get heat for this?

But let's think of this from Scott Adams' 3D persuasion filter.  Firstly, I'm not sure how New England or California republicans will react to it, but I'd bet real money it doesn't bother them as much as it would the southern ones.  Second, what exactly is going on?  If you guessed "a bunch of right-wing nuts bashing Trump for not being a bigot", I'd say you're wrong, but I'd also say a lot of people would agree with you.

See, Trump has a bit of a problem with smears that he is somehow a bigot because he doesn't want Cartel Thugs, Daesh, or Rapefugees in our country.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he won over the SJW crowd with this, and I don't think he was trying to.  In fact, I think he probably still has their collective ire, BUT, this may easily slow any "bigot" smears he gets in the future.  They will be at least somewhat less sticky after this.

A risky move, but probably less risky than calling out Bush in South Carolina, and he survived THAT.  We'll see how it goes, but if he gets past the primaries, this'll be a General Election win for Trump.

Soviet Style Elections in Colorado Lend Weight to Illuminati Theories

I'll be real clear, I do not believe that the Illuminati is itself real.  BUT, the RNC and DNC have enough control over the primary process that they can behave like they fit the role, and the Donor Class has enough influence over the both of them, that for all intents and purposes, it really feels like we have little to no control over our government.  This, despite us being a supposed democracy.

So what, exactly happened in Colorado?  They had a "Convention", same concept as the one in July, but WITHOUT BOUND DELEGATES.  In fact, it was worse than that, b/c some of the ones who were voting to select Trump delegates were kicked out, and/or had their votes nullified (I'll give benefit of the doubt that 379's omission may have been a mistake).  Then, to make it even worse, they then passed a rule banning the delegates they ended up selecting from voting for Trump on ANY ballot at the Cleveland convention.

So basically, if you voted at all in Colorado, it was for an RNC insider, who was not bound to vote on April 9th the way they said they would, and if they chose Trump, they were mostly discounted.  If you replace the word "republican", with the word "communist", that will resemble a USSR style election.

But yet, the RNC, including Reince Priebus himself, are DEFENDING this.

Welcome Comrads, we are now in the Soviet Union.

(Joke)Mitt Romney Sex Tape Found(Joke)

NOTE: April Fools day post, do not take it seriously.

Someone claiming to be from Anonymous, the REAL anonymous, sent me a graphic video via Direct Message on Twitter.  It involves Mitt Romney, but the partner is not who you would think.  It wasn't Ann. Paul Ryan, or even Marco Lubio.  Interestingly, it was, in fact, Barack Obama.  This may come off as weird, but it does make sense of the fact that he barely attacked Obama during his presidential bid.

As for the date, it's not clear, but one thing is for certain, the rumors of Obama being gay have at least something to them.  I am currently contemplating where to submit the video to, but it can't be youtube, as it would clearly violate the TOS.  Stay tuned.

Scott Walker Chronicles Part 3 - Walker National Committie

Check this bloomberg article for a second:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-09/walker-s-wisconsin-pals-priebus-and-ryan-sidelined-in-primary

Oh sure, it talkes about some stupid primary fight, but it also certifies Walker's ties to Reince and Ryan, there's also this picture:

Romney, Ryan, Reince, and Walker.  These 4 are not just RNC members, THEY ARE THE RNC think about that.  Whether you like Donald Trump or not, you probably do not agree with ideas such as election fraud, or, say, using brokered conventions to steal an election and calling it "the rules", even if it goes against the use of the voters.

This is why the Electoral college faces jail time if they don't vote the way they pledge, but the delegate game is EVEN SHADIER, but LESS KNOWN. They can steal it even if someone has 1237, by simply picking the right rules.  Naturally, it would be the death of their party, but they can, and some have shown such a willingness.

So with Walker being one of the big 4 of such a shady organization, it's NOT difficult to imagine why things like rampant police corruption (Manitowoc), Soviet Union style crackdowns on, well, Unions, high unemployment, high deficits and the like are the norm in Wisconsin.  Not according to Walker though, because according to him and his twitter feed (both of them), Wisconsin is a paradise of exactly the opposite of what the data says.

That reminds me of something, wanna guess what that is?

I called him Comrad Walker after yesterday, but in light of his two day twitter tantrums, maybe that was a bit more fitting than I intended.

Scott Walker Chronicles Part 2 - Make Mine Walker

Quick, what is one thing the Soviet Union was infamous for?  I'll give you a hint:

What happened?  Oh yeah, banning Strikes and private unions, something Scott Walker has is very fond of.  Why Scott, Stalin would be proud.

Yep, that's it for this one, speaks for itself, Comrad Walker.

Scott Walker Chronicles Part 1 - Making a Walkerer

Note - I'm well aware that the Steven Avery and Monitowoc corruption predates the Walker Admin, but it's also gotten more national attention since he took office, with repeated refusals to intervene. I don't think that's responsible leadership.

I won't pardon Steven Avery OR Branden Dassey

Right, you've probably seen Making A Murderer, if not, get Netflix and watch it.  Here's the laconic version:

-Steven Avery was convicted and later exonerated by an overzealous prosecuter for a rape that DNA testing proved he didn't commit.  Even without the DNA evidence, the prosecutorial procedures were highly questionable to begin with.

-A past Wisconsonian Governor was so disgusted with this, that he passed a law in Avery's name, aimed at protecting the innocent.

-Avery sued, and was on the verge of winning his suit, because losing 18 years of his life for a crime he didn't commit was a quite reasonable grounds for a lawsuit.

-The prosecution retaliated by murdering Teresa Halbach, pinning all the evidence on Avery, getting the Halbach family to agree with them, and arresting Avery for the crime.

-Avery was forced to settle his case in order to afford an effective defense, it ultimately failed because the jury was scared that if they could falsely arrest Avery, that they too, could be falsely arrested.

Lot of stuff there, but where does Walker come in?  I'm getting to that, but first, Dassey:

-Dassey was mentally retarded.  The prosecution took advantage of this to build a case against Avery.

-The Dassey interrogations were questionable at best, outright bullshit at worst.  He gave conflicting stories, and it took serious coaching from the "interviewer" to get Dassey to implicate anything.

-They went ahead and used this as evidence anyway, partly because Manitowoc is more corrupt than Chicago (more on that later), and partly because they rigged the system by appointing Dassey a lawyer who was actively working with them and against Dassey.

-The still under 18 Dassey naturally got convicted, the prosecution likely saw the poor kid as collateral in their agenda against a man who sued them for an arrest that should never have happened.

-Lastly, as some have pointed out, not everything that happened at trial was in the documentary, however, that includes both sides.  The defense had excellent rebuttals that were also omitted.

Now for Walker.  It's true, again, that this took place before he took office.  But with all the controversy, you'd think a clear pardon for at least Dassey, who is nothing more than an innocent bystander would be in order. But he has refused, not out of ignorance though.  He could claim ignorance, except that he has refused to even bother watching it.  His excuse?  The corrupt appeals court that pretty much said "well, he was convicted so that's evidence for us" (which you may recognize as circular logic, or as not being how appeals are supposed to work), refused, so why shouldn't he?

Aside from the fact that pardons are supposed to function as a check and balance on the system to keep it honest, refusing to review the overwhelming evidence of someone's innocence, because the corrupt system that has been horribly corrupt for years felt like convicting somebody, and did so, I don't think that is a legit reason for refusing to pardon someone.  Worse still, many have defended him by pointing out that governors sometimes don't want to pardon people for fear that they will be liable for future crimes committed.

On the surface, that sounds legit.  But, even assuming that's 100% accurate, that anyone pardoned for a crime they didn't commit will always commit another crime (and I don't have to tell you that is an insane assumption), what does that sound like to you?  Keeping people in prison for future crimes, that's ONE STEP AWAY from arresting them for such, no?  Minority Report, thy name is Scott Walker.

Okay maybe not, but my point is that would be no excuse, even if true.

Manitowoc Corruption

Just how corrupt is Manitowoc county?  Well, you may have heard of the Sheriff's Deputy's father who was on the jury.  You probably DIDN'T hear, however, why the defense kept him.  It turns out, it's because he himself was a victim of a false arrest and subsequent Kangaroo Court.  In other words, the corruption is so nasty, that the police will actually arrest and prosecute their own.  This has indeed been brought to Walker's attention by the Free Avery groups, but of course, he hasn't budged, because it is more important to keep people in prison than to risk pardoning someone who isn't 100% certain to never ever commit a single crime ever again.

How the Regressive Left are creating more bigotry Part 2 - Direct Bigotry and Racism

Update 3/16 - Added evidence of SJW Rapists

I've already blogged about the underreported stories of "Social Justice" being used to racially segregate, and to censor MLK.  What I didn't blog about was BLM (and I don't mean Bureau of Land Management), advocating for Jim Crow (you did NOT misread that), or how it has led to a rise in hate crimes.

KILL ALL MEN

Not a parody, this is a real thing.  And while many might be using it ironically or for parody, there are a LOT who are serious.  Even the pro-SJW Salon called them out on this.

Misogyny (YES, even this)

From rapefugee support, to defense of sharia law,  And when this video came out?

They had nothing to say.......Misogyny is not excusable just because it is their religion, If it were, we'd have to give the Moromons a pass for their extremely racist doctrine.

Oh, and did I mention that Social Justice has been used as an excuse for rape?  Because it has.

Part 3............

Will be about how SJW's have created ANOTHER problem, you can no longer call out REAL bigotry.............stay tuned.

How the Regressive Left are creating more bigotry Part 1 - Reverse Bigotry

Reverse Bigotry first, there are a few things that need to be covered on how bad the reverse bigotry has gotten.

Gamer Gate

By now, you probably know the media narrative.  If not, here it is:

-Gamers are misogynist, fat, white male neckbeards who harass women.

If you're black, female, skinny, or don't harass women and play video games, that's probably confusing to you.  Here's the real story:

-Anita Sarkesean has been on a crowd funded smear campaign against video games and people who play them since 2012, gamers took issue with being mislabeled and the predictable mix of sensible and less than sensible backlash took place.

-Zoe Quinn, slept her way into the indie dev scene (in fairness, it is nigh-impossible to get in), cheating on her boyfriend in the process.  When called out on this, she teamed up with Anita and the gaming press to slander the gamer community.

-The regular press jumped on the "gamers are misogynists" bandwagon.

So now, if you play video games, you are at risk of being mislabeled and discriminated against, in the name of tolerance.

Atheism+

I know a lot less about this subject, being a christian.  But the idea is that religious people are misogynists, and so are Atheists if they're not Atheism+.  So now, calling yourself an Atheist runs the same risk as calling yourself a gamer.  That's a bit odd, really

Political Incorrectness, Trump, and the word "slut"

The press seems giddy over Donald Trump, who has denounced David Duke and countless racist groups many times over the past years and even recently, saying he needs to research groups to make sure they are racist before condemning them.  This is not unreasonable, considering how SJW's have mislabeled people for some of the dumbest reasons imaginable.

I don't know if George Zimmerman is racist or not, but if he is, the reason he is racist is NOT because he shot someone who happened to be black, in apparent self defense.  Is Rush Limbaugh a misogynist?  He certainly could be, but it ISN'T because he called someone a slut for taking a lot of birth control.  The scientist who landed a probe on an asteroid?  Maybe misogynist, maybe not, but wearing a T-shirt with hot women on it is NO grounds for accusing him of such.  Is it racist to tweet statistics showcasing black on black crime?  Well, the black community constantly complains about black on black crime, so not necessarily.

It's gotten to the point that "fat pig" is apparently a "misogynist" insult against specifically women, right Megyn Kelly?

MRA

Men's Rights Associations.  Is it misogynist to want equal treatment by the family court system?  To not want to pay child support and lose your children to a woman who abused you?  To think that your gender should not mean economic collapse if a marriage doesn't work out?  Or that being male DOESN'T mean not being a good parent?

Well, according to the SJW community, yes to all of that.  So I suppose men are misogynists unless they think unfair treatment is right and just.

Choke Artist opens a pandora's box, and now he's paying for it.

Saying "Google it" at a presidential debate was, in theory, a good idea.  Shock the system with a new approach, and throw your opponent off his game.

2 problems have arisen over the day though:

First, Trump supporters have retaliated by googling Rubio to dig up what dirt they could find, and if you search #ChokeArtist on twitter, you will be seeing it.  For example, they have found out that Rubio has apparent ties to the drug cartels (often following this up speculation that his amnesty support is aimed at empowering said cartels), they found that Rubio was funded by and went to bat for a university that makes Trump U look like a traffic citation, that RubioCare has an individual mandate, that Rubio is a hypocrite on gay rights, and that he is infamous for treating police like garbage.

And, mind you, I'm cutting out a LOT, because if I posted everything, this article would drag on.

Second, the press, that was supposedly pro-Rubio, decided to respond to this by using google to fact check Rubio's claims.  And he's been getting hammered all day for lying about Polish workers, his university hypocrisy, and much, much more, but at this point, you've been inundated with enough links for one day.

On paper, good strategy, in practice, it backfired.  Partly because Trump rules on the internet (which should have, in retrospect, foreshadowed it would backfire), and partly because, the MSM wants Hillary to win, and decided to take a Google jab at their own at Rubio, just in case he's nominated.

Politico has a history of racism

Would you say that the idea of a black guy being a predatory rapist of white women is a racist stereotype?  I would, but in late 2011, that is EXACTLY how they characterized Herman Cain, in order to destroy his political career.  It's okay that they didn't like his politics, but it's a bit suspicious that they went with that specific angle.  Though if this were an isolated incident, I would dismiss it as noise.  It is not, however.

Whether Herman Cain is guilty or not, we can't say, but it's a bit odd that after he dropped out of his presidential bid, the controversy COMPLETELY DIED.  If he were guilty, it should be a subject of ongoing concern, no?  Well, moving on.

How about their history of loving Robert Byrd, former KKK Grand Dragon, who helped neo-confederate Strom Thurmond to filibuster a black rights bill, prolonging Jim Crow, and who only apologized and discouraged others because it was politically damaging.  Or how they tried to say that notoriously racist Woodrow Wilson did black people a favor.

Of course, in their latest spat of racism, they ignored that youtube eCelebs Diamond and Silk, started out as nobodies, and tried to imply they were bought, because of course any black person who might consider voting for a non-democrat is a race traitor and a sell out, especially when said person doesn't subscribe to political correctness.  I will admit, that they sell merchandise and monetize their videos, but their VERY FIRST video was an all lives matter video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw7A3eaKSJg

The don't even show their faces, it is unlikely that Trump saw this, realized that they were black, and bought them out to start stumping for him.

And the worst part?  They're not even republicans, they are Trump only supporters, but of course, if you're black, and NOT a liberal democrat, politico loves to use racial stereotypes to discredit you, right Herman Cain?

P.S. White liberals like me also get the race traitor treatment, though not as frequently. Maybe we need to STOP this political racism?

Also, a LOT of black voters like Trump's Wall, muslim ban, 9/11 and Iraq war talk.  I doubt ALL of them are bought, but politico sure thinks so.

Why Trump's anti-Bush attack was a brilliant move

Remember when Hillary Clinton voted to go to war in Iraq?  I do, and so does Donald Trump, and I promise you, what you saw on the 13th was a prelude to the general election.  No Bernie Sanders won't win, Hillary has enough SUPER Delegates to lose EVERY STATE and still win the primaries.

But back to Trump, not only did he win Independent and Democrat respect that night (and likely some of their votes), but Rasmussen, by far the most accurate pollster, shows that even republicans are maybe lukewarm on the W.  Not just that, but if you factor in the Clinton Family's well known and close association with the Bush family, we can infer that a small percentage of voters will associate Bush's actions with Hillary, albiet, we're talking single digits.  And sure, the Clintons were at Trump's wedding and such, but even that's a MUCH LOOSER association than with the Clintons and Bushes.

A quick reminder of what a failure George W. Bush was

-It's true that he was warned about 9/11, and failed to stop it, proof

-DID NOT unite the country after 9/11, that, in fact, was a result of Al Gore calling on his party to unite behind Bush.   Al Gore is crazy, boring, and not pragmatic, but he did play a great role in uniting us after 9/11, Bush did not.

-The Iraq war.

-Gas prices rose exponentially, OPEC held us hostage, failed to take action, gas went up past $4.00 per gallon. proof

-Killed the economy in 2008, exact cause is still being debated.

-Turned Bill Clinton's surplus into a deficit, and is friends with Barack Obama, who made that problem worse.

So yeah, Trump was right to call GWB a failure at the GOP Debate.

The REAL problem with twitter's timeline change.

While I'm a bit cynical, like most are, about Twitter's timeline changes, I'm not nearly as cynical as some.  Milo Yiaonoppolis, thinks twitter is going to use it to effect the election. I think that is less than likely, they're worried enough as it is about the state of their company and their shareholders are already giving them a ton of grief about the timeline changes.  Not to mention, if they even did this, Trump has ways of getting his message out that twitter CAN'T block, and can always buy up a sizable amount of their shares to counter it as a last resort (he has the money to do it, and would financially benefit in the long run).

The Non-electoral fallout

The REAL problem, is that this is one more step toward shutting down the anti-SJW conversation.  Sure, there are twitter alternatives, but only Twister threatens to become a household name, and is still in beta.  The more household social media clamps down on anti-SJW's, the more likely it is that the war on the Regressive Left will be lost in the long run.  Donald Trump isn't our last hope of defeating it, but he is by far our BEST.  And if social media clamps down, as the regular press already has, what hope is there left?

The Hypocrisy of Ted Cruz's "liberal" attack on Donald Trump

Curious, how, Temporary Muslim Bans, an Extreme Hardline on immigration, and an Extreme Hardline on Daesh counts as liberal.  Curious how torturing Daesh with more extreme methods than waterboarding, and not even for interrogation's sake, counts as liberal.  Curious, how strong support for police, albeit, with more emphasis than we have now on accountability, counts as liberal.  Curious, how wanting concealed carry to be a national thing, counts as liberal.  Curious how breaking up Common Core, and taking a stand against the PC Police is liberal.

The curiosities above?  All political positions that Donald Trump has held, consistently, on his campaign trail.

But this is about Cruz's hypocrisy.  So here we will point out, the time he supported amnesty, which he now says was a political game to expose the other republicans in Washington for being too liberal.  That doesn't make any sense, but moving on, how about the time he pulled a John Boehner and allowed Obamacare to be funded?  He has called it a personal win, because he prolonged it for a mere 21 hours?  Well okay, his REAL reason is that he got 2 million people to sign a WhiteHouse.gov petition, which you may recognize as something that was NEVER going to be effective.  Since that was essentially asking Obama to defund his own bill, something he has shown ZERO willingness to do.  Accomplishing nothing and calling it a victory based on a bullshit excuse, isn't that what Boehner does?

Okay, but we need more than two examples, so how about in February 2015, 1 year ago, when he was pushing to let the Syrian Refugees in?  Or how about when he supported Obama's idea of strengthening gun background checks?  Or when he proposed expanding H-1B? Or when he failed to vote against Loretta Lynch, because, "not voting" was "the same as a no vote" (he's either deliberately lying, or incredibly stupid).

Update 2/12/2016: Ted Cruz is STILL DOING LIBERAL THINGS in the senate.  He just got through allowing more controversial Obama appointees.  Seems Ted Cruz hasn't stopped being a liberal.

Pretty odd things for a "conservative" to do, no?  And sure, I'm liberal myself and don't mind a liberal, but what I DO mind are liars and hypocrites, and Ted Cruz has proven to be both.

Since Ted Cruz, has an ACTUALLY LIBERAL RECORD of his own, share this blog post abroad.  Let's expose how "liberal" Ted Cruz is, since he wishes to paint Donald Trump that way.  Making stuff up (which Cruz does in general), or bringing up 17 year old views, when you have a bad record of your own is hypocrisy.

Everyone who is reading this, share it as much as you can, expose that lying hypocrite Cruz.

Why carpet bombing Daesh is a horrible idea

Okay, so people have heard Cruz's proposal to "Carpet Bomb" Daesh, and some people actually like it.  The problem is, Daesh, like Al Qaeda, does warfare asymmetrically.  What that means in lamens terms is as follows:

1. There are no battle lines.  Enemy combatants blend in with civilians, engage in sneak attacks, and lay traps.  You don't ever meet an opposing army, per se, you deal with groups who come out of nowhere and start shooting suddenly.

2. They can start shooting from homes, markets, or recreational spots, even hospitals.  You can not just fire into such crowds either, in the hopes of stopping such an attack before it starts.  In fact, on that note, we lead to point 3.

3. Everywhere is a potential battle front.  It can happen anywhere, any time.

Points 1 and 2 mean that if you were to carpet bomb, you'd kill WAY MORE innocents than enemy combatants/terrorists.  They'd get so much more recruits because, although Daesh are indisputably evil themselves, they would legitimately be able to call us bad.

Point 3 means that even if we were to ignore that, which would be absolutely insane, we'd have to carpet bomb the ENTIRE MIDEAST to do it effectively.  We tried doing that with North Vietnam, a MUCH SMALLER AREA, and we FAILED MISERABLY.  I don't think we'd succeed now.  Not to mention the monetary costs.

And sure, Cruz may back down from this proposal, but the fact that he proposed it in the first place should be a good indication that he does not understand how to make the calls that a leader needs to be making.

Why Donald Trump is good for liberals and conservatives alike.

Okay, so it's a known fact that Trump has pull with people across the political spectrum.  The question many people want to know is why?  Well, I can say that when I first joined the Trump Train, I only understood the liberal side of it, but now I understand the conservative side too, let's take a look:

War on the Regressive Left

For those who don't know, the Regressive Left refers to Daesh apologists, Social Justice Warriors, and PC Police.  This is a largely bipartisan problem.

With the first thing, the problem is obvious, we can't be playing tolerance games when people are being brutally beheaded (it's not just chopping heads off, it's a lot more brutal than that), burned to death, and drowned in cages.  The whole Rapefugee thing doesn't help.  I do think his Muslim ban, however temporary, is a bit misguided, but it's a whole lot better than endangering ourselves in the name of tolerance.

SJWs are like PC Police, but much, much worse.  The problems with these two have evolved beyond CryBullying and Safe Spaces.  You can be branded a racist or misogynist just for your hobby (asl the gamer community).  Not just that, but there is even evidence that the SJWs are, ironically, racists themselves.  The Oregon Universities are enacting Jim Crow statutes and trying to censor Maritn Luther King.  Even if these two, very underreported stories really are isolated incidents, it's still scary that things like this can happen in the name of tolerance.

Worse, you have politicians like Hillary who want to enact laws enforcing SJW agendas, and with more such as Bernie, Jeb!, and now Carly Fiorina acting like SJWs, who knows how deep this hole goes?

And his breakup of common core is a major step forward in eliminating SJW culture.

Tough, but fair immigration

From the conservative side, the wall Trump wants to build makes obvious sense.

But from the Liberal side?  Illegal immigration is also a problem.  Wealthy business owners use it for cheap labor, at the expense of citizens.  Sure, deporting them may be a bit harsh, but when they're allowed back, and gain citizenship, they also will benefit from minimum wage, and if they need it, welfare programs.  They'll be able to vote too.

And one last thing about deportation, I had an illegal immigrant coworker who said he was SAD when El Chapo got captured.  I want that kinda filth out, and you should too.

Obamacare Repealed

Obvious from a conservative standpoint.

But on the Liberal side, I personally don't understand why more liberals don't hate Obamacare.  First, it IS NOT universal healthcare.  Second, it benefited the scum-baggy insurance industry, at the expense of the people.  While it's hard to say that there isn't any good within the 2000+ pages, really, it just needs to be trashed.

Repairing US-Russia Relations

I know most of you don't like Vladimir Putin, but be honest, do you really prefer him as an adversary?  I'm not saying we should trust him, in fact, we shouldn't trust any world leader, even the ones claiming to be our friends.  But I think at the least, not provoking him the way Obama does, is probably to our benefit.

"Malleable" is a good thing, and not just for deal making

In real life, being malleable and un-rigid is considered a positive trait, I guess in politics, it's not?

Being able to work with hundreds of Congress and Senators, all from different states, is a good thing.  Sure Obama is a stubborn ass, but he also has to spend a lot of time vetoing bills that republicans routinely pass just to piss him off.  Ever since Obamacare, he has gotten little done (routine budgets aside, and even then, he has had trouble), not nothing, but very little.  In fact, that's pretty much the entire reason he keeps abusing executive power, because he has had to, because the opposition will seldom (not never) work with him.

In fact, world leaders are not pleased with Obama's un-malleableness either.  He defended his right to spy on them, destabilized the mideast, and caused a serious refugee crisis that will harm most of Europe for decades.  Not to mention, if we had stayed out of Ukraine, Europe and Russia would be able to trade more right now, which their economies desperately need.

Someone who isn't a stubborn ass and can work with people is needed.  But don't worry, he has a history of making GOOD deals, I think he would continue that history if elected.

More Intelligent Free Trade

Saturday Night Live warned us about NAFTA, we didn't listen.  And now, we're paying for it.  And it has only gotten worse, and if TPP passes, worse still. Why is Trump the only candidate who wants to end this crap?  I don't know, but I know we better pick him if we want this stuff to stop.

A return to Speaking Softly, but carrying Big Sticks

Finally I will end on this.  I think not going to war all the time, if it isn't a bipartisan thing, it should be,  We need to keep our military strong for when they are needed, but it really is time that we reserve war for when it is necessary, and I don't think anyone but Donald Trump wants to do things this way.  Bernie, to his credit, wants to end the pointless wars, but he leaves out the Big Stick, and the Big Stick is needed, if only as a deterrent.

Open Letter to Donald Trump - Do NOT kill your campaign over Iowa

NOTE: If you're NOT Donald Trump and are reading this, share it with him on Facebook or Twitter.  It may not get through, but it is worth a try.

First, I think You are right to expose Cruz's Fraud and Voter Intimidation in Iowa.  Nothing wrong with that.

But let's be pragmatic for a second, recalling or nullifying election results NEVER goes over well in politics.  Rightly or wrongly, revotes tend to end with the loser, losing again, BY A WIDER MARGIN.  This is precisely why Bush won Florida in 2004 with a solid margin, because, if you remember, it was the Gore Campaign that kept trying to recall the results, and the Kerry Campaign felt the effects of it.

Please, Mr. Trump, expose Cruz and move on.  Iowa does have laws that allow for such things.  But guess what?  You need to leave that to Iowa.  If you take a personal hand in it, I can see that ending your campaign and helping Cruz.  In fairness, your downfall was falsely predicted many times now, but even still, don't take a chance.

Expose Cruz, humiliate Cruz, but let the results stand, if only to use them as an example of what a scumbag Cruz really is.

Ted Cruz, Voter Intimidater, Commits Election Fraud at the Caucuses

Just ask the Ben Carson Campaign:

Carson: We aren't quitting despite Cruz saying we are

Now, I still think that at least part of the reason Cruz won is because of low Trump supporter Turnout.  You don't go from strongly winning all polls to losing by an indisputable margin on a few stolen votes alone.  Still, this could backfire on Cruz as he'll get crushed for it in the Feb. 6th debate.  Not to mention, the Democrats may now be able to, between this and the Voter Intimidation, have him imprisoned if he makes it to the general.

Sure, people will say it is political, but it is still blatant and flagrant election fraud, there won't be much he can do about it.  Except, of course, have Goldman Sachs hire him a good attorney.  But that, of course, would only make his ties to them so glaringly obvious his reputation will never recover.

I am sorry, Donald Trump, that your supporters are a bunch of idiots

It has been made clear to me, tonight, that many of your supporters think that by NOT SHOWING THE FUCK UP TO VOTE, that they are electing you.  That saying they will vote for you in a survey alone will suffice.  For that, I am sorry.  I can say that for my part, I am not one of those idiots.

It seems, however, that a large chunk of your supporters are, for that, I am sorry.  It is not your fault, it is not mine, it is not most of your supporters', but enough of them are this fucking stupid, and I am sorry.  You fought the good fight Donald, but our country is fucked.  No republican but you could defeat the SJW candidates Hillary and Bernie, and you will not be the republican nominee because not enough of your supporters will vote, passionate as we may be.

I am sorry Donald, the US is screwed, you can't stop it, I can't stop it, but it is, and all we can do is watch in horror.  As gamers are profiled for our hobby, because Anita and the SJW media says we're misogynists.  As Atheists face discrimination because Atheism+.  As people start to get jailed for just because accused of rape.  As people start to face profiling and jailing for anything that is perceived as racist, all we can do is watch in horror.

And if you think I am being paranoid, look at how Canada nearly jailed someone for disagreeing with an SJW, look at how the UK profiles gamers as criminals, because of some stupid twitter feud.  Look at how Hillary and Bernie are jumping on the SJW bandwagon and threatening to enact laws enforcing SJW agendas.

No republican has the numbers to win the white house but Donald Trump, and HIS supporters evidentally DO NOT SHOW UP TO THE POLLS.  We are screwed folks, we're just screwed.

Why I will NEVER vote for Ted Cruz

First, as the blog name suggests, I am a democrat.  And while I am not partisan, and thus, open to voting for republicans given the right circumstances, there is ZERO chance I will ever vote for Ted Cruz.  If republicans want any chance of winning this race, they had better pick someone else, and here are the reasons:

Pretending to filibuster, then caving John Boehner style

This highlights the most real problem with Cruz, he is a phony.  A filibuster works by not giving up. Doesn't always work, I get that.  But Ted didn't even give it a full day, his real objective was to court the conservative vote, and unfortunately, that seems to have worked.  But the point is that it was about votes, not fighting the good fight.  He didn't expect to defeat Obamacare, he knew he had no chance.  He was simply saying "look at me, I'm standing up for you", but he wasn't.

If he couldn't get at least ONE other republican to help him filibuster, there were other options, like reading off their names to their constituents in a press conference (they already won't work with him), or telling his own constituents that he tried to stop it but that any one man filibuster is doomed to fail, cus, you know, human biology.  But he didn't, he needed to show himself making a stand, and that's the problem.  He was aiming for looking like a man of action, and not actually being one.

New York Values - Cruz hates non-conservatives

Yes I am a liberal, I have a right to exist.  Cruz doesn't think so, and I worry if he were ever president, what that would mean for anyone who isn't conservative.  He made it clear in that debate, that he does not like non-conservatives.  And that's his right, but I don't believe people who think that way should be leaders.

Embraces Glenn Beck

It's okay if some whack job endorses you, you can't control people and shouldn't try.  But there is a difference between being endorsed by a wacko, and embracing said wacko.

Voter Intimidation

Alright, let's pretend that this isn't illegal for a second.  Do we want a president who would do such things?  Now it is true that similar letters have been used by other campaigns in the past, the difference, though, is that they usually don't imply that the recipient broke the law in any way.  This is plain, simple bullying of the voter base, and if he's doing this as a candidate, what would he do as a president.

Inconsistency

Although he has tried to level this claim at Donald Trump for opinions he held 17 years ago, Cruz himself changes opinions constantly, like with the polling numbers.  In fact, in the past month, he has gone from hating the Ethanol thing, to loving, and back to hating it, WITHIN ONE MONTH, I think that's pretty significant.  Cruz supporters can not understand why he is compared to Hillary Clinton, but this is why.

They both change with polling numbers, it's all about getting votes, not standing on policies.