Right after the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, we all sat down on our blogs, podcasts,youtube channels and social media, and began analyzing the results. Who was the real winner? Who made the better points? Who looked like the bigger asshole? The general consensus among 99% of the mainstream media is that Clinton won hands down because… well, because… SHE’S CLINTON AND NOT TRUMP, YOU RACIST/SEXIST!!! She talked a lot about some nebulous concept of “income inequality”, made up the cute term “Trumped up trickle down”, smiled condescendingly and, from some sources, even signaled a few times to the moderator in order to get him to help her gang up on Trump. Trump, on the other hand, laid out a few solid jabs in the form of attacking her and her husband’s support for NAFTA and pulled no punches when saying that inner city ghettos are shitholes.
Unfortunately he was also a bit defensive when questioned about allegedly supporting the Iraq war (which he never did) and was forced to defend himself against allegations of not paying an architect for designing one of his hotels or something. So, in that respect, he didn’t exactly look good. To the people who ACTUALLY analyzed the debate, the result was somewhat of an in-between loss and win, with Clinton being spoon fed soft ball questions – nothing about emails or Benghazi, of course – while Trump was forced to defend his not releasing his taxes, accusing Obama of not being born on American soil and other tabloid nonsense that most Americans don’t care about.
But, at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because the majority of American citizens aren’t analytical or deep. So, what we – and by “we”, I mean Trump-supporters from all sides of the right-o-sphere (hey, I still LIKE mainstream conservatism, I just think it needs a good kick in the ass) were concerned with was not so much if Trump “officially” won or lost the debate, but rather how it would effect the psyches of the majority of people. My belief is that, if any man is even thinking of voting for Clinton, it MUST be because his wife is denying him sex. Otherwise, if you’re a man, and you saw the way in which Clinton condescendingly smiled and the phony performance she put on, and you still didn’t get mad, then you’ve never worked for a company with a human resources department.
In other words, most people are not voting analytically; they are voting from the gut. And people who are allegedly smart engage in this all the time. If you’ve been paying attention at all to the world around you, you would be absolutely fearful of the kind of world that Hillary Clinton will foist upon the American people by letting in something like 100,000 Syrian “refugees” into the United States. The number one issue behind this election is immigration, with law and order in the inner cities and renegotiating job killing trade agreements in a second place tie.
The argument against Trump from liberals is simply that he’s a big, racist, meany-head, who wants to deny amnesty to those poor “refugees” and close the border to Mexico because he hates Mexicans. Oh, and that he hates women and calls them fat. THAT’S IT!!! They have no other argument against him. The argument against Clinton is that, with a population of a third of a billion people, she wants to let in MORE people, and have those people be from a part of the world with a culture that is FAR different from ours; and, as witnessed in places like Sweden and France, just doesn’t mix well; I mean, unless by mixing well, you mean white women having mixed race children after being raped by a Muslim from Somalia. While that is technically a “mix”, it is not a good mix by most people’s standards.
Clinton will continue policies that were started by the Bush administration, the very administration these same Clinton supporters attacked in 2003 for going into Iraq and turning it upside down, effectively leading to the birth of ISIS. I guess, in their minds, if a woman does it, it’s all good, right? Now, in a normal person’s mind, keeping a group of people, whose values aren’t your values, out of your country, while NOT blowing them to bits is FAR more humane than bombing their country back to the stone age and THEN letting their refuse into OUR country. Of course, when I told a liberal feminist chick that, “Clinton wants to bomb the Allah Akbars, and that isn’t humane”, her response was, “uh, Allah Akbar is a saying, not the name of their people.” Apparently mine and Trump’s words are more hurtful than burning napalm.
But we’re not dealing with normal people; we’re dealing with people who don’t vote based on policies and logic, but people who vote with their feels.
When I was younger I had less respect for people who didn’t do their “civic duty” by not voting. “It’s part of being in a democracy, man!” A more naive version of me had equated “voting” with knowing what the fuck you’re actually voting for. Nowadays, I have FAR more respect for people who say, “I can’t stand either of those assholes, and I’m not voting” or “meh, don’t care about politics”, then the people who go around encouraging people to sign up and vote.
In fact, as many on the Alt-Right and contrarian right would agree that they would SEVERELY limit who is allowed to vote. When I posted something along those lines on Facebook, my former “friend”, Tom E (not going to say his last name because if this gets back to him, he might have a hissy fit and threaten to sue my ass) told me I was advocating Herrenvolk democracy. But that’s bullshit. I DO feel there ARE certain groups of people who, by any logical and moral standard, have NO right to vote.
For instance, welfare recipients have no right to vote. Why does someone who sucks at the government teet and gives nothing back have equal say on how to spend the money I earned? That one should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Furthermore – and this may seem harsh, but – people on disability should’t have the right to vote. Even if someone legitimately needs to be on disability, that person is still taking government money, and there are far too many people, like my former friend, gay fag “skinhead” Nick, who could work, but chooses not to so he can spend government checks on booze and drugs. Either they have to make requirements stricter, or we have to employ harsher rules.
But, let’s get down to the real nitty gritty. Welfare is still a choice, and disability is something you get on later in life when you discover you can’t or decide that you don’t want to work. Let’s talk about the horrible, awful, discriminatory concept of… GENETICS!!! Who REALLY shouldn’t have the right to vote? To be honest, as far as race goes, I don’t fuckin’ know. We’ve seen numerous demographic voting shifts with virtually all ethnic and racial groups.
DON’T YELL AT ME!!! I know blacks have trended Democrat since the 60s, but I honestly feel that’s cultural, rather than genetic. The real controversy appears to be with letting women have the vote in 1920. As Ann Coulter once correctly stated, “if women couldn’t vote, we’d never have another Democrat in office ever again.” Of course women and liberals in general got mad, but it’s essentially true.
Women don’t vote based on logic, numbers or on what policies work for everybody, but on what the government can dole out to them; women are wired to like security, and the government has become the new sugar daddy. They’ll try (and fail) to rationalize why giving them free everything is a net good for everyone – and, if you’re a good looking guy in your 20s, who just wants to fuck loose hoes, I suppose it is. The very second that women got the right to vote, they voted in overwhelming numbers for prohibition. Since the 1920s, with the woman’s vote, the government has increased in size. With the government providing the sustenance, women can finally be “free” to slut around on the its dole and not need a men to provide for them. The government provides money to women for every child they have, and, when they decide they don’t really want to have a child, the government provides the abortions as well. Now feminists want the government to give them free birth control, as if paying $40 a month is SUCH a huge expense, and non-feminist women will go along with it EVERY SINGLE TIME because it’s another level of security.
So, the question someone might ask me in is, “are you saying your solution is to take the vote away from women?” NOPE! Somewhere in my libertarian lizard brain, I STILL feel that the law should treat everyone equally, while not insuring equal outcomes even if my empirical brain also realizes that there ARE differences in races and sexes – especially the latter – that guide people to make the choices they do. So, what’s the bottom line?
Administer a voting test! That’s it! Every year, if you want to vote, you have to take a test and PROVE that you’ve got the goods to vote. If you don’t know what you’re voting for, or if you’re just voting on your feels, then you shouldn’t have the right to vote. But, if you can prove that you know what you’re talking about, then by all means. The test would be administered every single year before every election your local governance might have. Okay, in towns with like 2,000 people, where they vote the same way for trash commissioner, I suppose you wouldn’t need this test. But, in densely populated areas where you vote for your congressman or the President, you simply have to take this test, and, if you score roughly 85-90%, you can vote!
That way you show your opinion means something. The very first question would ask how much the national debt is. If you can’t write in the approximation of the national debt – no, you don’t need the EXACT number – then you fail. If you get it right, you move on. There would be questions on which demographics commit the most amount of crime, which groups of people contributed to what policies and their net effects and questions in general pertaining to historical events and their impact.
For example, a question might be, “which group of people were slaves at some point in their history?” If I need to tell you that the correct answer would be “all of the above”, then you shouldn’t vote.
And, If you pass the test, you’ve proven that have the mental wherewithal to debate politics and policy, to determine which programs and laws to keep and discard and to decide where other people’s money should be allocated; that way you’re not just voting because the politician you hate called someone fat. With this test, nobody could complain they’re being discriminated against, and that way, the tiny percentage of women who enjoy reading about history, politics and statistics of group demographics, and deal with the facts in a dispassionate nature, will get to vote, while the rest can go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or Cheating on Your Boyfriend of Five Years.
Oh, one last thing: if you have a name like Deandre Jones or Dung Pham, you would be represented by a number, rather than your name, so you could never complain about being discriminated against for your race or ethnicity. Cool? Cool!