Connect with us

Offbeat

Does Trump make liberals ill?

Published

on

Did you know that politics makes liberals ill? Yes, that’s right, it does. But before we describe and diagnose the situation, let’s look briefly at a few things that make Leftists angry, to better understand how they….emote. (Most don’t think.)

To make the Left angry all we need to do is exist, guilt-free. This enrages them, which is a fine sight to see. But what makes their heads truly explode…Republicans in power.

Mind you I didn’t say ‘conservatives in power,’ I said ‘Republicans.’ Republicans are often not conservatives, or anything close. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel, both Republicans of long-standing, are what Kurt Schlichter has called ‘Fredocons’ men who stupidly want to respect of people they think important.

Whenever Republicans hold positions of power, even if they aren’t really conservatives, they still make the Left shake with rage. We all remember the Bush years. 8 years of Bob Woodward writing (another) presidential debunking. 8 years of books descrying traces of Christian theocracy amongst Christian Bush-voters. 8 years of Bush Derangment Syndrome. We all thought it was nuts. But what’s happening now is even more nuts.

But now we’re onto Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here are a few examples of what Trump’s driving liberals to.

Jimmy Kimmel has been driven to calling a Fox anchor a ‘little creep’ for daring to criticize Kimmel. The New York Post found it necessary to discuss how Trump called Kim Jong-Un ‘Rocket Man’ and ignore the other aspects of the speech. Maxine Waters continues to beat the drum for Trump’s impeachment, ignoring that there is no such thing as an impeachable offense.

Even the neo-conservative leader Bill Kristol has gone mad, continues to lead the Never Trumpers and calling for a military coup against Trump.

But here are some of the finest examples.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, has complained that Trump’s presidency is literally killing him. In a recent article Milbank has said that he’s suffering from, “fatigue, poor sleep, even some occasional chest pain.” He’s said he was health before Trump but now, “eight months into Trump’s presidency, I was suddenly ailing.”

Milbank has company in the Trump Ward at the hospital, in the person of WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan. Noonan recently described a drug-induced dream she had, in which Trump and Hilary were more humble and gracious. MSNB host Katey Tur has written in a new book that Trump’s election made her want to barf. When she heard Trump was planning victory rallies after his electoral win, “The panic mounts. More rallies? I am falling over. More taunting crowds, more round-the-clock live shots. More airports, more earsplitting Pavarotti…I can’t. I just can’t.”

So why are these liberals suffering so greatly? Well, because for many of them, politics is both religion and therapy. They let their need for faith in something drive them into the arms of Progressivism. But this is unfair to Progressivism. Much as I dislike Charles Beard, TR and Woodrow Wilson, I readily admit them to be men of talent and, in the case of TR, absolute fearlessness. Today’s liberals are ninnies, whinginng wimps compared with their forebearers.

If politics makes you physically ill, then you need to get a life, and perhaps a God. Learn to look at things from outside the guilt-informed worldview of a 1st World, rich person, who is comfortable enough to make a living either writing or entertaining, instead of digging ditches or pouring concrete.

The man in the White House shouldn’t matter that much. Everyone, Left and Right, takes the President to be a far more important man than he really should be. It should matter little whether the President has an R, D or a T after his name, because the Republic can poke along without a Beneficent Leader to oversee all things.

If a Presidential victory rally makes you panicky, drink a big bottle of Tequila, take a nap and for the love of God remember we don’t live in a world that revolves around you. If you want to see a President impeached, by all means try to see it done. But stop acting as if there are impeachable offenses, when constitutional experts say there aren’t.

Politics is not the end of life. Things not going your way is part of life. Everyone, Grow Up!

Chris McDonald, Classical Conservative, Federalist, amateur philosopher and Son of Liberty. Visit me on The College Conservative at http://thecollegeconservative.com/author/christophermcdonald/

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Social media one cause for adolescence now starting at 10 and lasting until 24

Published

on

Social media one cause for adolescence now starting at 10 and lasting until 24

A new scientific paper out of England proposes that social media is one cause for both the premature ending of childhood and delayed transition to adulthood until age 24.

The age of adolescence

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(18)30022-1/fulltextAdolescence is the phase of life stretching between childhood and adulthood, and its definition has long posed a conundrum. Adolescence encompasses elements of biological growth and major social role transitions, both of which have changed in the past century. Earlier puberty has accelerated the onset of adolescence in nearly all populations, while understanding of continued growth has lifted its endpoint age well into the 20s. In parallel, delayed timing of role transitions, including completion of education, marriage, and parenthood, continue to shift popular perceptions of when adulthood begins.

The paper suggests a view of adolescence as between the ages of 10 and 24 “corresponds more closely to adolescent growth and popular understandings of this life phase.”

The paper also remarked on the role of social media, regarding it as being among the “unprecedented social forces…affecting health and wellbeing across these years.”

The paper cited “delayed timing of role transitions, including completion of education, marriage and parenthood” in affecting the perception of when adulthood effectively begins. It goes on to suggest the longer range of adolescence is “essential” for “developmentally appropriate framing of laws, social policies, and service systems.”

If the paper’s premise were adopted, one logical conclusion would be the extension of the period in life when one might enjoy the privileges of adulthood, such as voting and driving automobiles, without the corresponding responsibilities or legal liabilities of being an adult (for which those costs are often shifted to the innocent victims or society in general). For example, in many states, minors (under age 18) are treated as juveniles and often receive much more lenient sentences (and charging decisions) on account of age, even when their crime is very much a “grown-up” crime and the impact of the crime on the victim is no less.

One can also view this as cynical social engineering. A call to increase social services, with the justification of an expanded population “in need” and “at risk,” would result in subsequent calls for increased government funding of social services. As someone has to be paid to provide those services, the redefinition of adolescence can be suspected to be merely the latest pseudo-scientific attempt to lengthen the public employee / social services gravy train, which always seems to run on time.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The strange tale of the Turpin family

Published

on

The strange tale of the Turpin family

Abuse of children is one of the most horrible things anyone can do. Rarely do I even read stories about abuse. I know it exists. I’m against it. I don’t want reminders of how evil some people really are. The story of the Turpin family drew me in and made me weep for a world that allows such things to happen.

Here’s the story, followed by my brief thoughts:

California family: Parents charged after children found shackled

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/16/us/california-turpin-13-siblings-held-captive/index.htmlDavid, 57, and Louise, 49, are accused of holding their children captive in their Perris, California, home in filthy conditions, some of them shackled to beds with chains and padlocks. The 13 siblings range in age from 2 to 29.

The parents are charged with torture and child endangerment, and scheduled for a court hearing Thursday. Bail was set at $9 million each. It was not immediately clear if the suspects had attorneys or whether they had entered a plea.

On Sunday, one of their daughters, a 17-year-old, managed to escape from their home by climbing out a window and called 911 from a deactivated cell phone she found in the house, police said. She told officers her parents were holding her 12 siblings captive inside the home, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said.

My Take

There’s a danger here. We have to be mindful of children who are being abused. Unfortunately, that also means there will be times when the state must intervene. Any time that happens, I get worried. I want as little intervention as possible and only when absolutely necessary. The story of the Turpin family is an example of it being necessary.

The problem is that this evil was allowed to continue for decades. How can that happen? How do we respect the rights of parents and embrace a non-interfering government when there are people like the Turpins in the world? It’s a slippery slope and I have no answers.

Continue Reading

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.