Told you so

(Yeah, I know, the video quality is shite. Sorry.)

All I can say is that I totally called this one:

Well, with all due respect, Mr. Cohen, this is what I had to say on the subject nearly 18 months ago:
"When a man and a woman have a combined room-temperature IQ, and have no sense of self-responsibility or control whatsoever, the man ends up sticking his Peg D in whichever of her holes is most convenient and easily accessible at the time. This usually tends to be the Slot C. Because these people are having SWS*, this sometimes results in what most people would call 'a child', or 'a blessing from God', but in this specific case results in what should really be called a 'fornification tropy'. Net result: 18-25 years worth of baby jail." 
Unfortunately, these people are breeding rapidly. And this trend of idiots having babies- either while out of wedlock, or by getting married and then divorcing- appears to be getting worse
(It would be so easy to mock another one of these twits, but sadly I just can't bring myself to link to another story about another Kardashian in the same post. I couldn't do it and look at myself in the mirror tomorrow. Deadlifting 400+lbs? Easy. Having to talk about the Kardashians? Pure TORTURE.) 
Look, all joking aside, we're talking about children here. By definition, children have done nothing to deserve this bleak future. Men and women get married, one of them eventually decides that she- and it is usually the woman- is unhaaaaapy, and the child is the one that gets stuck dealing with the misery of a broken home. Why does your society insist that this is a Good Thing and insist on enabling this folly? 
If you're not ready for kids, don't have them. It's that simple. Contraception- for the pagans out there (like yours truly)- is cheap and easily available. For those who are not so inclined, well, abstinence sucks- but you know what sucks way more? Twenty years of baby jail
The bottom line is that children are a heavy and difficult responsibility. If you're not ready for them, don't be a selfish dipshit and do at least try to be responsible.
Now, admittedly, Etan Cohen was referring the likely election of one Donald Trump as President of the United States of America. And I called that one too.

But, in all seriousness, would a President Trump be so bad?

Yes, he isn't exactly sophisticated in his rhetoric. (I do not necessarily count this as a bad thing.)

Yes, he is vague with his policy statements and there is an awful lot of handwavium involved in any of his pronouncements on a number of subjects- including taxes and immigration.

Yes, there are major problems with his platform that he must be held accountable for and which conservatives, libertarians, and right-wing nutcases (hey, that's me!) need to look at very carefully.

But, he is also the only candidate that has consistently held to a principled line on the only subject that really counts: the coming dissolution of the American republic due to massive immigration.

At this point, it's basically Donald Trump against the Hilldebeast. And I remain highly confident that if you put an unquestioned Alpha male like the Donald- even with his ridiculous hairdo- up against the Wicked Witch of the East, he will win, and handily.

It is at that point that things could get really bad. It is entirely possible that Donald Trump will betray the people who elected him by compromising on a number of policy platforms. It wouldn't be the first time that a supposedly principled conservative engaged in political horse-trading to secure a bad deal just for the sake of his legacy.

After all, most conservatives prefer to conveniently forget that it was their hero, the (genuinely) great President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. And that Act, along with the even more destructive Hart-Celler Act of 1965, is what has landed America right in the mess that it finds itself dealing with today.

Tens of millions of illegal aliens are here thanks to the Federal government simply not doing its first bloody job, which is to uphold the law.

If the Donald fails to carry out the enforcement of American law, which has been his biggest selling point thus far- and gets away with it- then we can truly be certain that Idiocracy was not a documentary, at all.

Something tells me, though, that this is unlikely to happen. It still could, and I could still be horribly and monumentally wrong. But somehow, I rather doubt it.


  1. Reagan was also a former Dem who signed No-fault divorce into play.

    Everyone on the cuck side always thought that it would be some articulate, lawyerly guy like Cruz that would be the next Reagan. They forgot to look in a real big building with a man's name on it in New York and missed him.

    There are many parallels between Reagan's Dem to Rep conversion and Trump's support-to-play with the Dem politicians.

    1. Yeah. There are quite a few mistakes that Reagan made as Governor and as President that cuckservatives LOVE to overlook. I retain my opinion of President Reagan as the greatest American politician of the 20th Century, but I am not blind to his errors of judgement and strategy.

      The big difference between Reagan and Trump is that the former's convictions were formed over a lifetime of careful study, analysis, and reading. I get no such impression from Trump; his "conversion" to conservative or at least nationalist principles is quite suspect to me.

      Doesn't change the fact that he is the only person in the race, on EITHER side, who actually talks any kind of sense on the majority of the important issues.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts