Children howl and scream, if not brought up properly, when they don’t get what they want.
If they’re brought up properly, then they know tantrums produce nothing and that lack of self-control can be counterproductive. This is the proper socialisation of the child, for him to become aware of this.
What we have below is the child in a tantrum, university students called out by their ringleaders who are the darlings of the professors, who are marxist-leninists or some variant:
The grievous error, of course, is that they are throwing out their toys over the will of the people, validly expressed except for their own side’s cheating. Why do they do it? Because they know the media wolves are there to lap it up and plaster it over the front pages, and that people like us will plaster it over our blogs.
So it is a behaviour with a calculated reward. It also underlines the fact that the press is without shame, without ethics these days. It is infested with snowflakes and quite evil people at the top expecting their subbies to do this sort of thing, on pain of promotion.
Even Obama and Clinton accepted the decision as part of the game – their lot will have the dirty tricks ready for next time. They are at least grown-up in that respect, the truly evil ones, though so insanely in thrall in other ways we’ve gone into ad nauseam. aAnd what is very clear is that this is the behaviour of the lawless, of the destructive, of those who will tear down if it’s not their way. Just as the Muslims do.
They’ve learnt that such behaviour reaps rewards. Maggie spoke of not giving them the oxygen of publicity but it’s difficult, is it not, if we’re in the business of posting what comes along. And the only reason such things are possible efficacious is that the fabric of the rule of law has eroded, courtesy of the Obama and Clinton backers.
And when that happens, as readers here know, only the criminals have a field day, the rest of us are placed in great danger. Constitutions and protective laws insisting people can do legal things, expressing themselves as they legally wish are to be defended to the death, otherwise death is what comes to us as society. Here endeth the lesson.
The lawless ones
Not the slightest common ground with those people, not even a smidgeon. They have caused it, not us. That there are two sides to every dispute really does not apply here. On one side is us, wishing to be left alone, to have only what is our due for our efforts … and on theirs, well you know.
There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what’s good for them.
Here it is from another site:
Yeah, but there are strong statistical correlations between party affiliation and personal/moral views. Example: Trump voters generally support repealing abortion. They also are heavily white, and either old. or young and poorly educated.
Actually, properly educated when education was worth something but this young intellectual has it all at his fingertips, doesn’t he?
As I say, not the slightest grounds for doing anything with one of these, except to react, stymie and block him. Or her.
And here is another who never grew up at all. I’d like his boat to be renamed Boaty McBoatface:
And here’s another of these horses’ backsides hard at it – I read a few lines and could not go on:
We see it now in the EU clowns offering Remainers dual citizenship, doing everything to stymie Brexit, a clear decision of the people and therefore to be implemented without delay, as per Cameron’s leaflet.
Would we act that way if the decisions had not gone our way, which they are now more and more? Well, look at one which didn’t – Obama getting into power. We ranted and raved on our blogs. In France, Manif protested at the calling of buggery marriage. That was it. There were no Weathermen groups [Obama’s chums, Bill Ayres etc., blowing up buildings and spreading violence].
We say strong words. That is our reaction.
Just how many of these lawless bozos are there?
Here I include those not necessarily lawless themselves but who go along with it at the ballot box. Looking at America and using Breitbart’s map:
… and with Trump finally getting 304 EVs and Clinton 236, this gives percentages of 56.3 versus 43.7 but with her taking the popular vote slightly.
Take out all the rigging and corruption, the sudden giving of the vote to 60,000 felons, that sort of thing, possibly he would have taken the popular by a bit.
Point is that he would not have done it without crossover from the Dems, blacks, Hispanics, nor without the blue collar whites, just as with Leave v Remain over here. Nigel knew it full well. And that is the age old conundrum that the real strength of the middle-class white conservative/libertarian is around the mid 30s in percentage, with combined left leaning around 40 to 45%.
Therefore, the lawless left can win tribally every time unless there is a major issue, which there was in both cases. But an ordinary election would not see the middle-class bourgeois in power unless joined by leakages from other groups. Therefore there can never be a rightwing agenda which turns off those add-ons.
Thus it must be watered down. Cruz would never have got in. And we’d never have had Brexit without the workers from around here.
Which suggests that next time, with that nationwide anti-globalist desire somewhat blunted, the left can come storming back. Which is why those Supreme Court justice places need stacking now, and will be.
One way to do it next time, unless Trump is halfway through a programme, is for Ivanka to go for the ‘break the glass ceiling’ angle. But who’s to say they won’t put up a charismatic woman to oppose her, though by definition, a meathead of course?
What’s been written on a lot in the past two days – and many links have come through here – is just how so far away from reality the lawless left are. I know we say it and we write that this will teach ’em a lesson.
Not a bit of it. They’re full on blaming things Trump did, e.g. spread misogyny, as if that was a principle to vote for someone on. One of them tweeted: ‘Love trumps hate,’ with all the loaded values behind those three words. I replied: ‘Yes, the hatred by the left has been a terrible thing indeed but now it might be contained.’
Does not compute in their rigid brains. No, handed down from above is Trump is hate, they are love. What is this madman [me] saying here? I know, he’s a rightwing fascist.
And there are just under half the people in the land thinking like this. And at election time, they seem to be the majority, when combined with the non-voters who now vote.
Saving the world
For a more humorous end to this post, just as Gordo saved the world, so The View congratulated the fat ex-Miss Universe, she of the criminal associations and therefore Clinton material and the woman promptly accepted the congratulations. LOL.
One commenter wrote:
I have never understood how a show with four or five cackling hens spewing ignorance and nonsense (and cowering in fear whenever Queen Hen Baba Wawa laid her hammer down) could become so popular, so influential, or last so long.
So sad for what it says about the intellectual capacities of the women and gay men who love it.