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.