Politics – Page 23 – Splendid Isolation

Trust, Religion And Institutions

December 23, 2019 Kim du Toit Deep Thoughts, Politics

I like this post, especially this excerpt:

The soft, feminine authoritarianism we see in the West is a free rider. It is possible because of the inertia from the old high trust societies that came before it. If Finland faced a real crisis, one that threatened its existed, the first thing that happens is their pixie of prime minister is replaced with a serious person. The same would be true in Canada, where their gender fluid prime minister is mostly a luxury item.

Which leads me to a tangential point. Generally speaking, if Z-man is correct, weak rulers are an indulgence during times of peace and/or prosperity in democratic societies. Harsh times, as he indicates, call for strong leaders — Churchill in 1940, De Gaulle in 1959, Pinochet in 1973 and Reagan in 1981. And taking Canada as an example, they have been able to elect essentially weakling prime minister pretty much forever (e.g. Trudeau Mark I and II in the 1970s and 2010s, respectively), living as they do under the protection of the United States. I refer to them (and that Millennial Finnish premier) as “dilettante” leaders because in good times, they are not really harmful and can play at being leaders.

Now ask yourself these two questions:

Is the United States in such a position of peace, prosperity and security that we can afford to indulge ourselves with a weak leader?
Is there a single Democrat presidential candidate that can not be described as a dilettante leader? To put the question into perspective: in any negotiation with China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin or even Iran’s Khameini, would the putative Democrat president (i.e. from any of the current candidates) emerge as the victor? Put another way: can any of the above candidates be favorably compared to, say, a stronger Democrat president such as Harry Truman?

Every leader in the world knew who was the stronger adversary when faced with Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. And they all likewise knew who was the stronger when the U.S. President was Jimmy Carter — who, by the way, is an absolute colossus compared to Buttigieg, Biden, Warren and the other socialist stooges.

I also think that most Americans who don’t believe in pixie dust, unicorns and Communism understand this concept absolutely; which, by the way, explains why Republican voters chose Trump over the other Republican candidates in 2016, and why Ted Cruz — who is not a dilettante candidate — was their second choice, albeit a distant second.

Given the current state of the world and our position in it — and thus understanding that the United States cannot really ever indulge itself with a weak president — the choice facing us in Election 2020 is quite clear. This is no time for a boutique president — it’s never a good time for a Marxist president — and I’m pretty sure that we Americans know it.

Too Late For That

December 19, 2019 Kim du Toit Politics

From a Democrat:

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) is leaving the party and becoming a Republican over the issue of impeachment, which he has long been opposed to.
Van Drew told CNN earlier this month that Democrats should “be careful what [they] wish for” because impeachment “is tearing the nation apart.”

Hate to tell you this, Jeff old cock, but your ex-buddies started the tearing a long time before impeachment was even mentioned. Think back to labeling amiable people such as G.W. Bush and even Mitt Romney as “Hitler” and “fascist” — and not once being rebuked by party leadership for doing so — and I think you’ll see who started all this, and when.

Just don’t be surprised if in November, your newly-adopted party’s leader wins 45 states and you lose your seat. (Think: Stalin’s opinion of Trotsky, and you’ll get an idea of your party’s reaction. Remember: Marxists always reserve their greatest hatred for people whom they call “counter-revolutionaries”, i.e. party members who dare to go against the Party.)

Polls Apart

December 18, 2019 Kim du Toit Crime, Politics, Pussification Parade

I see this from the Rassholes:

Voters are ready to jail or fire senior law enforcement officials who illegally targeted President Trump.

This is all part of the pussification of American society, because I’m pretty sure that if the polls were taken exclusively among my Readers and those of similar ilk, “jail” would disappear altogether and be replaced with “hanging, drawing and quartering”, “scourging” or “flaying”, with the tender-hearted among us (there may be one or two) favoring “tar ‘n feathers” and similar, more-humanitarian punishments.

We are, after all, talking about sedition if not treason. And it was either started by, or actively condoned by, the guy at the top at the time.

And if you don’t at least smile grimly at the thought of Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al. being the featured attractions at a noose party, I don’t wanna talk to you.

New Wrinkle

December 17, 2019 Kim du Toit Elections, Politics

I remember listening many years ago to a discussion between Derek & Clive (Peter Cook and Dudley Moore respectively) about politics. Margaret Thatcher was facing reelection, and Derek had a fairly novel suggestion:

“I think that Mrs. Thatcher should broaden her appeal to voters by giving us a brief — but tasteful — glimpse of her vag.”

Now it should be remembered that at the time, the BritPM was quite a babe (by politicians’ standards, anyway):

…and her wardrobe always managed to conceal a rather impressive bust, so Derek’s suggestion was not at all out of left field.

Now before I go any further, you may be thinking that I’m about to suggest that all female politicians follow Derek’s suggestion, but of course, nothing could be further from the truth — as a simple illustration would show:

Clearly, this is not a vote-catching approach with universal application.

However: if there is a reasonably-attractive female politician who, for various reasons cannot attract a significant number of voters for whatever reason, how could it hurt?

With that in mind, allow me to show you one such politician who, despite having some fairly decent policy positions (for a Democrat), is still trailing way back in the polls; it’s the lady from Hawaii, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard:

Now granted, young Tulsi is of the Democrat persuasion, and their core constituency seems to be made up exclusively of rabid feminists and wizened lesbians (some overlap), Muslim sycophants if not actual Muslims (who would want the whore stoned if she revealed her pudenda), homosexual men (ergo immune to her charms) and political apparatchiks who, from all accounts, have no sex life outside the Party. So maybe a quick vag-flash wouldn’t work with them.

Still, given that Rep. Gabbard has managed to garner maybe 1% support in the polls, my question remains: how much could it hurt?

Or is the basement-dwelling neckbeard incel population too small to matter?

I think we should be told.

Ultimately, Margaret Thatcher didn’t take Derek’s advice but still managed a thumping victory in that election (largely because she organized a thorough thrashing of the Argies for invading the Falkland Islands — can’t go wrong, slaughtering Argies).

But Tulsi can’t even order a carrier battle group to launch attacks against a second-tier target such as, say, Honduras let alone a massive pounding of Iran — always a proven vote-getter (sadly among conservatives, not Democrats) — and in any event, she has gone on record as being against U.S. aggression in foreign lands, so all that’s a non-starter.

All the more reason, thinks I, for her to consider the Vag Option.

Next up: Nikki Haley.

Buh-Bye

November 4, 2019 Kim du Toit Elections, Politics

…to our favorite wannabe gun-confiscator, Beta O’Rourke, the Skateboard Jesus (thankee, Iowahawk), from the ~~clown car~~ Socialist slate of presidential no-hopefuls: