Hillary is teflon and so bad for America

As a non-American, I do not know whether to laugh or cry . There is NOTHING about Hillary that I like, am inspired by, or that are worthy of consideration. She literally has NO good points. I consider her a criminal.

I mean at present and even with Benghazi still casting its shadow over her, there is the Clinton Cash scandal with her Clinton foundation and the apparent collusion with the DNC to commit election fraud.

Now Director Comey has let her off the hook a week after the Attorney-General and her husband had a secret meeting. The fix is in.

BUT there is something that strikes me as strange. Director Comey told us ALL the things she did wrong and phrased it in such a way that there is NO doubt she IS guilty and yet. No conviction.

As summarised by Allen West

  • He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
  • He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
  • He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
  • He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
  • And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

YET she got off.

We have to question why he went to those lengths to point out her “criminality” and untrustworthiness. I believe he was controlled by forces outside of himself that prevented him from convicting. Maybe it was a real threat or an understanding that he would be ruined if he had submitted to Loretta Lynch a recommendation for an indictment. But if that is that case, he did the next best thing he could do and offer an honest account as to how bad she did and how righteous the investigation was. He was treated very badly, as was his staff and I think he was played up to the last. Though the decision to indict her was taken off the table, he was going to let everything else spill.

Why? Because fuck her. She gets her way, but the public gets to know how crappy she was when in a position of trust. They will know she lies, obstructs justice, is untrustworthy and her ability to put America at risk in her want for personal convenience.

He has allowed Americans to see that IF he cannot indict her for America, that maybe he can at least let Americans know the truth. That is she is not fit for government. She is untrustworthy, lying, and places herself above her country.

I hope the long term effect of this is to drop her another 5-10 points in the polls. She deserves it.

I hope she loses. I hope she loses badly.

Furthermore I hope that her expectation of consolidating the Democratic Party vote is dashed. I hope the Sanderites refuse to vote for her and instead vote for Jill Stein of the Green party (a very Progressive Party). It will mean that Hillary will go down.

It would mean that Trump would win BUT it would also be the splitting of the Democratic Party and an establishing of a new political order of three viable parties. The Moderate Liberals, The Republicans and The Progressives. THIS is something I ultimately think is good. A large enough green vote would mean that Sanders and his ideas would be able to at least be bought to the table. Instead of being dismissed by a rigged system where he has no input, Jill and Bernie would be able to be courted a little by the other parties.

I think there is a place for Progressive values. I think that they ought to have a voice. I do think that seeking to act as not only an alternative to the two parties BUT as a policy backer and policy pusher and policy negotiator is where a lot of strength is. Even if The Green Party did not get high enough numbers to threaten either party in the poll, as long as the numbers were high enough they could be seen as someone to negotiate with first before pushing forward with policies or to compromise with.

It would keep both parties honest. They would fight the fights worth fighting and concede on the smaller battles. It would also mean that the Green Party would be not subject to domination or dismissed by the Democratic Party.

This is my thoughts only. Let me know what you think.

Advertisements

This is why Trump keeps on winning

I am being won over by Trump for a number of reasons.

It has been a reluctant conversion. Mainly because I think he is a bit of a blowhard and promises too much, that I honestly do not think he has a hope of delivering on.

What got me on side was two things his style of trolling crap out of people that try to subdue him and making them freak out, and secondly, his ability to upset the kinds of people I do not like. The perpetually outraged, politically-correct, virtue signalling moral arbiters and social justice warriors. The media was against him and I liked seeing him owning them.

I found myself sticking up for him when people were misrepresenting him. I watched each poll and cheered when he won and sighed when he lost.

But he still had not won me over.

Another thing in his favour is how much better he was to his opposition. It was easier barracking for him without him being the best pick of the three candidates. Him, Hillary or Bernie. A criminal and a social vs a businessman.

But going from best of a bad lot to more of a fan required something a bit more.

In challenging the social justice warriors and media narratives of him (normally edited and misrepresented) I found myself thinking about his policies so much more.

Is there a problem with Mexican illegal immigration in America (and no I am not going to entertain the fact that he either said or meant that all Mexicans – illegal or legal – because it is a dishonest narrative)? Yes. Will build a wall prevent the majority of illegal immigrants? Yes. Will the follow on effects be better for America? Probably. Its certainly a rational and logical conclusion.

Is there some really big problems with open border policies in Europe? Is a lot of the recent issues in Cologne, in Paris, in Brussels as a result of radicalised Muslims and has this been caused through mass and poorly vetted immigration from Muslim dominated countries? I know that feelings can get in the way of logic and reason here but it must be. Was that same ideology behind the San Bernardino attacks or the Orlando attacks? Will Hillary/Obama’s plans to increase Muslim immigration by 500% be better than Donald trump’s plan of stopping Muslim immigration?

Is tough trade deals a good or a bad thing? Are other countries taking advantage of America? I have no idea. IF it is true then Trump is probably making sense again.

None of these things are homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist or any of the other bigotries the leftist monkey organ likes to spew.

Now we could rightfully ask the question, does Donald trump have a decent chance to do the things he is wanting to do? Even with the power of the Presidency will he have the ability to make such broad sweeping changes and will it have the impact he is after if he does make them? I honestly do not know but I believe the sincerity of everything he says. He says he is “Gonna build a wall and have Mexico pay for it”. I don’t care if he can or not. I think he believes it and I believe he will do all he can to make it happen. It becomes easy to compare even these things. Would you prefer someone who is trying to pull out stops to reduce the volume of non-citizens illegally entering the country and the various problems associated with this? Or do you want someone who refuses to address it in any way.

Furthermore, I think of the fact that the massacre at Pulse nightclub was on Latin night. I am wondering whether the gay community and the Hispanic gay community and all Americans with gay and Hispanic friends and family could take seriously Hillary Clinton who tries to make this another “gun issue” and has to be pushed into even acknowledging the obvious radical Islamic connection. In some radicalised Islamic countries gays are thrown from rooftops by radical Muslims and so why would a radical Muslim not hold the gay community in such low disregard. She KNOWS what is happening with these radical Islamic immigrant elements in Europe and she is happy to treat the issue as a gun problem (other feminists are trying the “toxic masculinity” trope) and is happy to quintuple the Muslim immigration rates. Only Donald Trump, the man pilloried by the Hispanics and gays alike for being so divisive and sexist and racist and homophobic, is prepared to say “This is bad and its dangerous and we do not want the problems of Europe here in America. We do not want to increase risk by not properly controlling immigration and allowing people like the San Bernardino and Orlando zealots to slip through the cracks”. Reducing Muslim immigration would help in this regard. Placing a freeze on it would be better. increasing Muslim immigration by 500% is not going to do this.

Again it is not racist. Protecting American citizens from future attacks is not a bad thing. “What about the Muslims that are already in America?”. What about them? Him making a decision does not retroactively change the past. It no more changes the status of a Muslim immigrant settled in America than changes the events of these horrible tragedies.

The Judge Curiel case he has got ground to suspect that the Judge MAY (operative word) a little impartial and bias. Unfortunately Trump has done another Trump kind of thing and done himself no favours. The Judge HAS made some terrible decisions. The Judge DID have some questionable associations if one is looking at whether he could possibly be at all biased. Does that mean he IS biased? No. Does that mean IF he WAS biased it was BECAUSE of his ethnicity? Short answer is “Yes”. But it is a bit more involved. I had about half the story from my own looking into it and it certainly seemed reasonable to asked the question on all I could see. Donald Trump knew a lot more than me about it. Did he share it all? Nope. He talks in a collection of soundbytes and doesn’t give the full story or big picture. He mentioned the judge made some “bad decisions”. That means nothing to anyone. (I looked into some of the decision and , DAMN!) He said the Judge could be biased because “he was Mexican”. I mean this is red rag to a bull kind of stuff. He also mentioned the judge had some associations but again did not expand on this and it was after the Mexican statement. Of course it was conveniently dropped and everyone rounded on him for being racist.

Whilst I really could expand on why this there is grounds on the Judge recusing himself, this guy does a better job than I could ever do. What trump said again was completely reasonable.

It is again, a constant theme. He is allowed to be attacked. That is perfectly fine BUT should he fight back he is a bigot. If Rosie O’Donnell or Megan Kelly want to attack him then he can’t fight back because he is sexist if he does.

If he is being hard done by the Judge Curiel then him bringing attention to this is because he is racist.

If he fights hard against his other Republican contenders in the primary race he is a bully.

No. Enough of all of this. His policies are good and his want to fight back is fine. I say he should do more of it. In the press. Against the Liberal and Conservative haters. No matter what they identify with. He should try to implement these policies of his and should push his message of border and economic security for America.

I can put up with his foot in mouth moments because he has more substance than Hillary. Hillary has nothing to offer and will only hurt America. People are waking up. He keeps winning. He will keep winning.

 

Damn Hillary – Found in the comment section

This is from Hunter Brooks a commenter in the comment section

Full credit to Hunter Brooks.

Spread this far and wide people.

The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. Prosecutors charging someone with obstruction don’t even have to establish that any investigation was pending or under way when the deletion took place.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.”

Legal commentators call this “anticipatory obstruction of justice,” and the law punishes it with up to 20 years imprisonment. The burden of proof is light. The Justice Department manual advises that section 1519 makes prosecution much easier because it covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.” It adds, “No corrupt persuasion is required.”

Other problems for the scandal queen was to immediately turn over ALL the docs and emails when leaving office – she never did until the courts made her…3 years later

Unsecured Server – NEVER using a GOV secured device

Classified and Top Security Docs stored in unsecured server

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to “improve public access to agency records and information.”

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

The Federal Records Act
Clinton did not use an official government secure email account while serving as the country’s top diplomat. Instead, she used a private email account and kept all of her emails on a private server in her home to fly under the DC radar. SO noone would know whats shes doing as a head of state.

and MAYBE you should research The clintons taking in hundreds of millions with their pay for favors = Clinton TAX FREE Scam Foundation is all ok -Influence peddling to money laundering = Corrupt

There are many problems with the Clinton charity and ethics. In fact, the Clinton Foundation is so unlike a real charity that even charity watchdog group Charity Navigator refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because of its “atypical business model.”

One of those problems is the fact that the Clintons put big donors and close pals on the board for reasons that are hard to fathom. In fact, at least four of these “board members” have either been charged or convicted of serious financial irregularities, crimes including bribery and fraud and they help run the foundation?. Having a Code of Ethics is not in the Clinton’s scandal queens past which proves the Clintons dishonest character.

The Clinton Foundation has raised more than 2 Billion of TAX FREE Dollars and is a money machine “a cash cow” to hide the money the Clintons take in from wall street, special interest groups, lobbyist, oil, tech, pharm companies and even foreign Governments even while she was head of state.

Partial list

Overall foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative jumped 73% to just over $102 million from 2013 to 2014, the period when Hillary Clinton was prepping her run for the presidency.

Last February, the Wall Street Journal identified “at least 60 Companies that lobbied the State Department during (Hillary Clinton’s) tenure (which) donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.

Silicon Valley giant Cisco was the biggest foundation contributor nominated in 2009, giving the Clinton charity between $1 million and $5 million. The company then won the award in 2010 when eight of the 12 finalists and two of the three winners had donated to the foundation.

The other Clinton contributor to win that year, candy-maker Mars, Inc., had given between $25,000 and $50,000.

Coca-Cola was the most generous foundation donor to be honored as a finalist in 2010, giving a $5-10 million donation.

Tiger Machinery, a 2011 finalist, is the Russian dealer of Caterpillar, Inc. tractors and other heavy equipment. Caterpillar gave between $1,000 and $5,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Intel, another Silicon Valley giant, was nominated for an award each year of Clinton’s time in office, winning the award in 2012. The technology company donated between $250,000 and $500,000.

Five of the eight finalists and one of the two winners were foundation donors in 2012. A finalist that year, Esso Angola, is an international subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil, a prolific contributor to the Clinton Foundation. Exxon-Mobil gave between $1 million and $5 million.

Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.

Each of the companies listed appear to have made at least a portion of their donations before 2013. However, the Clinton Foundation’s vague listings prevent a more thorough review.

Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 and $25 million, with the most recent contribution coming in 2014. Other unspecified donations have come from the state of Qatar, Kuwait, and the Sultanate of Oman, some of which, as reported by the Washington Post, were made while Clinton was Secretary of State.

Six banks under government investigation or in litigation were listed as public sponsors of the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting, even after the investigations were widely publicized. The most notable of these was the Swiss banking giant HSBC, whose $81 million donation came at the same time that the bank was being investigated for money laundering. A former Goldman Sachs executive, Robert S. Harrison, is the CEO of the initiative

In 2014, the Goldman Sachs Group donated $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton foundation; Barclays, the Bank of America Foundation, and Citigroup each coughed up $500,000 to $1 million that year.

Four of Clinton’s top five donors since 1999 have been Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. Ending Wall Street greed is difficult when you’re funded by these interests.

Harry S Truman once said – “”You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” Yet the Clintons have made hundreds of millions using their title and power = Influence peddling even money laundering = corrupt .

I have a theory

Hillary is ahead on the general election polls.

She has beaten Bernie and his supporters have not got the result they are after. They are unhappy now and will be more angry after tomorrow and more angry after July convention when she becomes the Nominee.

Then what you will find is that the percentage difference between her and Trump will increase as she secures her base and starts winning over the disenfranchised Bernie supporters. (many will NOT vote out of principle and a few will drift to Trump).

If you are a Trump supporter, this consolidation will be a HUGE hurdle.

There is an unconventional answer. It is a little bit left field. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. It is a strange choice. I third party neither democratic nor republican. It will draw heavily from the democratic party and a little bit from the Trump side. In actuality their policies are about 75% Sanders. They are also likely to have a base of around 10%.

If we are to break this down into approximate terms then at present we would be nationally looking at, maybe:

5% donkey votes

10% Libertarian

41% Trump

44% Hillary.

If we concluded that few in the pro-Sanders would drift to Trump and that MOST would not vote with the next greatest majority casting their vote at the democratic nominee, then you are seeing that the benefit to Trump is minimal.

IF you convince the Bernie supporters to vote for the man who is pushing 75% of their man’s policies, it is like a watered down way to keep their dream alive somewhat AND be a thorn in Hillary;s side. It would not mean they would be forced to discard their vote or put it into a candidate that they actively disliked. What is more, at 10% base BEFORE Bernie supporters, it would have the potential to shake up the campaign.

If Hillary slightly edges out Bernie in total votes and Hillary slightly leads Trump, then what would a slight deficit (Bernie) PLUS 10% look like?

I am thinking that would look more like:

5% donkey votes

25% Libertarian

34% Hillary

36% Trump

Remember Libertarians steal votes off Trump at a rate that is LESS than Democrats. It would be a much more exciting race and would make the Libertarian party a force in America. No more two party system, Donald Trump for President, Hillary denied the chance to be the criminal President she wanted to be, a weakening of the Liberal base.

IF you ARE a Trump supporter, consider this. Libertarians WILL NOT win. No more likely than Sanders winning. Though 3% seems like a small percentage lead, when you talk in terms of millions of voting Americans, it is HUGE. 2% difference may be a protracted scandal. The percentage gains within a primary race will NOT happen in the general election especially along political differences.

Therefore you need a third alternative that will rob your opponent of more percentage points than you. The obvious choice is the Libertarian Party and the obvious source is the most easily converted voters, are the disenfranchised

THIS is the kind of comment “I” will peddle:

Get the word out. IF Bernie is robbed, then don’t reward Hillary, don’t not vote. There is a third alternativehttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/31/libertarian-presidential-candidate-i-agree-with-sanders-on-73-percent-of-the-issues/
It may sound left field, BUT Gary Johnson represents the Libertarian movement that can already lock in 10%. of the election vote. Imagine if every Bernie voter after the election DID NOT go to Hillary and did NOT abstain in protest or waste votes in donkey votes?

Do the numbers Donald Trump is just shy of Hillary. Bernie just shy of Hillary.
Now add “just shy of Hillary with 10% in the bag and you have a three way contest!

But more than this. Libertarians are NOT establishment and are NOT republicans. Gary Johnson is right about three quarters of the policies align with Bernie.

Bernie pushed so very hard even though it looks as though everything was against him and rigged, because he wants attention and consideration to his policies.

Support Johnson after the primaries (Bernie WILL lose the establishment WILL make sure of it) and allow the majority of his policies to survive the lose through Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Get the numbers up and make the other two parties bend the knee to them, to Bernie’s policies!

Vote for Gary in the General election and keep team Bernie alive. Do it for Bernie

Up to you guys. Tell me what you think.

 

 

 

Okay this may be a little bit evil BUT IF you are a Game of Thrones fan…

Tormund Giantsbane is obviously very interested in Brienne of Tarth. Brienne is a little repulsed by the Wilding’s affections. Its fun, awkward and dare I say it “cute”.

The usual culprit “Progressive outlets” have peddled crap about Game of Thrones and its “misogyny” and “sexism” and such. Whilst there was barely a raised eyebrow when Theon was tortured and castrated, there was a veritable uproar when Sansa was raped. The same when Danaeyres was raped. Yet Oberyn having his eyes gouged out and his head crushed slowly in the Mountain’s hands seemed mundane in comparison, apparently.

There were of course the usual whines of weak and submissive female characters and strong dominating male characters. They all said how great Sansa was and anyone who saw Sansa as ordinary and average were sexist. She was underrated.

That too was crap. Arya and Dani are two of the cast favourites up there with Tyrion and John Snow. Tyrion, Bronn and Arya are my favourites.

There may be a small window of a possibility for a bit of fun. The progressive outlets are having a bit of fun “shipping” Tormund and Brienne.
They are doing the usual “get a room” and talking about the “couple” and in very mushy romantic terms.

By their own “values” and “rules”, we would be obliged to ask them why they are treating Tormund and Brienne as a couple. I mean IF Brienne is showing no interest in Tormund and they are treating these two as a couple and telling them to “get a room” and such, then aren’t these people disregarding Brienne’s lack of interest? In fact they are treating her as a disempowered object to be acted upon and therefore if they are encouraging her to be part of a “couple” of who she has no wish being part of and get a room to have sex in….then is this no encouraging rape?

Hey…we did not make the rules. If these SJW outlets are going to apply stupid standards, we really ought to stick it to them when they fail with consistency. So why do it? Because simply IF you morally virtue signal along these lines you may get a few nibbles in the SJW camp if you link it to a few SJW outlet articles. Get a few more bites and it COULD result in landing some real fun as SJWs start eating each other.

I love seeing them fight each other. So find a few articles and go fishing on social media. Good luck

 

 

Donald Bloody Trump!

Okay, who was triggered!

Okay so there are some VERY good reasons not to be a fan of Donald Trump. He is not very Presidential. He has no experience. He talks in sound bytes and absolutes and appeals to the lowest denominator. He says a lot of things that on the face of things are pretty inexcusable and beg for some context or clarification to save him from bigotry.

So is he a saviour or Hitler? I know this is an outlandish view, but I see him as something somewhere inbetween. He annoys and captivates me. I WANT him to get to 1237 JUST to stick a finger up to the force which tried every trick in the book to stop him. Both side of the debate (GOP and the Democrats) have done everything in their power to mock, ridicule, smear, misrepresent and lie about him and yet he has hung in there. He DESERVES a chance to run as the Republican Nominee.

So I hope he wins? Yes!

But hang on, am I a closet trump fan? No I am pragmatic. GOP needs to be taught a lesson and so establishment Conservatives I am not interested in, Cruz and Kasich are ball-spoilers, Hillary is EVIL, and that leaves someone who is unlikely to win nomination and is nice, affable and ultimately deluded.

The thing that most people fail to register is that Sanders has a VERY clear idea of politics and its mechanism and has been a staunch Socialist all his life and his Progressive agenda is something that he would push like Hell in the White House. Hillary is a Career Criminal. No exaggeration. What about Donald? Okay let’s look VERY closely at him. NON-POLITICIAN. So when you strip away is bluster and bullshit….what do you get when he enters the white house? An empty shell. Does this scare shit out of you? It shouldn’t. Trump will not be surrounded by Yes men that scurry off to do his bidding like some minion of an arch villain in any cheap Hollywood movie. He will be surrounded by competent advisors. He will grow into the role. I thin his will be a moderate leadership not out of will but the lack of ability, experience and knowledge to do otherwise.

That sounds okay to me.

Let it NOT be Hillary.

I am watching this bloke closely and even as an Australian with no “skin in the game” I find myself watching the Primaries and seeing him win and mentally pumping my fist at his every win. For me he is the embodiment of the pushback against political correctness and the social justice police. The identity politics crowd and the neutered establishment on both sides, I want to see him do damage to it all. I do not care the reasons or who gets hurt or upset. I do not care if he is lynched. As long as he does shake up the status quo and make them adapt, all good

 

Go Trump. I am on the Trump express and I will happily ride it off a cliff for the “greater good”.

 

 

The Ideologically driven social parasites called “The Progressive Left”.

I talked at length about Feminists https://gamergating.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/the-lie-you-have-been-told-for-decades/ there I touched on these Social Progressives and mentioned that the line between the two is pretty thin.They are both pretty terrible.

But there is a few things I want to mention about the Progressive Left (“Regressive Left”). I will set the stage to exactly how to look behind the curtain at these ideologically driven social parasites.

You see a black person in the street, you meet a gay person at a party, you work with a female colleague, or you sit next to a Muslim on the bus, what do you know about: them, their hopes, dreams, upbringing, ideologies, taste in music, favourite sports teams, prejudices, fears or…..anything? If you say “Nothing”, congratulations, you have proved you are the majority of us. If you say that race, gender, sexual preference or the like have very little unto themselves to inform us about who someone is or is not, then personally, I believe you do not met the definition of a bigot. So if a person is a person and a blank slate for you until you form some kind of knowledge of them as individuals, then great.

This is NOT the default position of the Regressive Left. To these people everything is sexist and homophobic and everyone is stack on a rigid Progressive Stack. Can anyone see how insidious this mindset is? You see a black person, you are not seeing a person but a black person and as such a category of person with specific designated social baggage that they MUST own, inform their being and identity and NEED you to defend IF you are to considered a decent person. Same goes with a gay person, a Muslim person, transgendered person and so on. IF you are deemed higher on the Progressive Stack, you damn well better be willing to supplicate yourself and not risk upsetting or offending this person.

THIS IS BIGOTRY. Before you blow this off as anything less than bigotry, remember we have all agreed that we know NOTHING about the person. The only thing we have is this one detail. We still don’t know if they are nice or nasty or whether their opinions are good, bad or indifferent, or even whether they share any opinions or experiences with us or not. So in fact at this stage our liking or disliking of this person is going to be based on what our impression is from here. IF you find they are an asshat then why not dislike them and how does that make you a horrible person or a bigot? IF you like them an have a connection with them then that does not make you a moral person, that is simply two people connecting.

So why the confusion? Why do these social parasites called the Progressive Left, think that you must pander and supplicate to all people deemed as less privileged (or is it more oppressed? I have trouble following this ideology)? Are people all equal and all people and can you respect them in people to treat them the same irrespective of things such as their genitals, who they are attracted to, or colour of their skin? IF so, you are NOT a Progressive Leftist (Social Justice Warrior) and not a bigot. If you feel you must, then you are bigoted. Hate someone for their personality or their actions but not their skin colour, religion, age, sexual preference or gender or whatever else.

The Regressives can’t have that. You must be willing to treat all people in a particular way but not only that (and here is the kicker) all positions emulating from this ideological position of social pandering and social activism to cater to their imaginary Progressive Stack, MUST be completely uniform. All people in these categories are to be viewed in the same way and all positions in respect to these people MUST be the same. Conformity and uniformity are the requirements and any deviation will be suppressed.

It is all moral virtue signalling. “I am so moral and intellectual that I know the Progressive Stack and where different people exist on my abstract concept of Oppressive Hierarchy and who has what Privilege and treat people accordingly”

It is neither moral nor intellectual. It also shuts down any sense of examination of issues, if you feel morally obligated to never consider any other facts than what your rigid ideology has prescribed. For example, gay marriage, is a topic that can be more complicated than first impressions. It is not so simple as a moral or intellectual gay people should have the same rights and if non-gay people have the right to marry then so must gay people. That was always my default position. Who gives a damn if gay people get married, how would it affect me one way or another? But I am open to other opinions and I WANT to hear them. I have heard three alternative positions on gay marriage which would be against gay marriage and none of them are homophobic (which is the default position of the Regressive Left “You MUST agree 100% without deviation to the ideological narrative…..or you are a bigot AND therefore I am morally superior and your intellectual better”).

The first position I heard that was anti-gay marriage was “Marriage is a religious ceremony. Religion has been instrumental at condemning gay people. Why seek a religious ceremony as a gay person?”

The second position I heard was “Marriage is a crap institution and no one should get married”.

The third was from Milo “Marriage is the dull, domesticated conformity that is expected of heterosexuals and that being gay allows a present a licence to be non-conformist that heterosexual people do not have. Marriage for gay people would make gay people conform to social mores they do not have at the moment.”

I do not believe ANY of these positions are bigoted nor hateful. I just do not agree with them. That is okay. I want these things to be discussed. I do not care for exclusionary, close-minded totalitarian approach the Regressive Left has in social critique.

Transgenderism I have already discussed here https://gamergating.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/jesse-singal-is-an-idiot-but/ and again it is not so simple.

It is the irony with these Social Activists and “Progressive” people is that they are not intellectual and have not the intellectual rigour to examine alternative positions and see anything more than black or white on issues. Complexities are lost on them.

For all their moral signalling, they lose the high ground here because of their willingness to identify people and treat them according to their race, sex, sexual preference or whatever, rather than treating each person as a human. (Of course to pile hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy, IF you are one of these people on the Progressive Stack that allows you a “greater voice” due to your deemed oppressive non-privileged status, and you choose to actively denounce their positions, you are treated as an apostate.

These people are neither morally nor intellectually superior and I would say that to a person they are the exact opposite. In fact I will go further, scratch below the surface on each of these people (and the louder and more prominent the more likely you will find this) and you will find broken and morally bankrupt people. Alison Rapp? Sarah Nyberg? Hannibal The Victor? Varis77? Nafedude? Hey the truth is out there on each of these people and I do not need to spin anything or make anything up. I could keep going too. But shake the closet and skeletons will tumble. I honestly believe that MOST of them are either psychologically compromised or they are simply bad people looking for atonement of sorts and acceptance as “good people” because they know that they are not.