Canadian voters are idiots

President Trump made himself the boogeyman in the last Canadian election.  What did voters do? Vote for the same party that has decimated our economy. Why? Fear. Actually fear combined with sheer stupidity. We have a long way to go to catch up with Americans as far as common sense goes.

Ilhan Omar thinks you're stupid

 She outright says it:

Ilhan Omar mocks "stupid" Americans pic.twitter.com/jGITli2swg

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 23, 2025

If you need a refresher on who she is, here is a smattering of examples.

This and this. 

This.

And here, the AP, trying to justify her ridiculousness. And even with the fact checking, she still comes across as a looney toon.

Finally for now, this.

This woman should not be in congress, and arguably, America.

It's all cyclical, even these levels of stupidity

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; 7a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

I've always argued that everything is cyclical.  Weakness follows strength, strength follows weakness. Recession follows prosperity, and prosperity follows recession. Summer follows spring, which follows winter, which follows fall and in turn it follows summer.  Warming follows cooling and vice versa.

That thought is both disheartening and inspiring depending on where in the cycle you might be. After all, cycles often take longer than a lifetime to complete. But right now it is an encouraging thought.  We may be at the very early stages of the rebirth of rational thought, at the end of an extended era of wokeness and emotion trumping common sense. The issues with Target and Bud Light may mark the turning point.

Of course that could just be a false hope. It's possible that the radical left are just retrenching for another 'final' assault on liberty and sanity. Maybe the stupid cycle isn't over just yet. Yet even if that is the case, even if the United States were to eventually fail, the ideas, the ideals will not expire, nor can they be extinguished. Someday were the United States to fail, a rebirth would be inevitable.  That is a reason for hope.

Of course, we'd all like to see it in our lifetimes, but that is not for us to decide.  All we can do is our own little part, as best we can, to make the attempt to help along the entire Western world in the return to common sense.

Enjoy your stupid life

 An adjunct to my previous post, this gentleman has the right idea: enjoy it.

You can try to "fight city hall" and still enjoy your life.  They are not only not mutually exclusive, it is imperative to do both at the same time.

Public schools and the media make you stupid

 This is not a must see, it's a must SHARE.

Social Distancing is really, really stupid

Let me be clear,  I think like Survivorman Les Stroud, that following guidelines on behavioral changes are a good idea. Cover your moth with the crook of your elbow when you cough.  Wash your hands.  Do not congregate and avoid interacting.  All good ideas.  But social distancing is a stupid term.  It sounds like it was fabricated by the same people who fabricated the term social justice.

Anything with the word social in front of it is virtue signalling.  Justice is justice, social as an adjective is meaningless.  Distancing is distancing, social as an adjective adds no value to the term. Social responsibility is just responsibility.  Notice there's no term "social common sense"? That's because the people coming up with these terms are SJW types and they are co-opting the language to both feel important and innovative and to hijack the national conversation to serve their own ends.

What's ironic is that the term was probably invented by a millennial type who is part of a generation that through the likes of Facebook and Twitter have been inadvertently socially distancing themselves for a decade already.

I for one refuse to use the term. 

Stupid moment of the year.

How does a person like this reporter get access to the president?

NPVIC - stupid idea gets a setback

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) took a hit last week.  The idea is that if enough states that possessed 270 electoral votes combined signed on to the NPVIC they would all agree to cast their electoral college votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote rather than whoever won the popular vote within their own state.

The idea is just plain stupid.  The idea behind the formation of the United States was that they were an alliance of states with similar interests, aligned for common defense etc.  States' rights and ability to individually determine what is best for their own interests is paramount.  To subvert the will of the people of New Mexico to the will of the people in Florida, Texas, New York, Illinois and California is potential counter to the self interest of the state.  What if those states (with a very significant percentage of the electoral college at 171 votes combined) and a few key others all supported a presidential candidate who backed the idea of using New Mexico as the national toxic waste dump? And what if that candidate won, despite citizens of New Mexico voters voting 97%-3% against the candidate? The state would still transfer their electoral college votes to that candidate.

You see the problem.

Good news though.  After the Nevada state senate signed onto the compact, the governor wisely vetoed the bill.  Tim Pool argues that this is self defeating for the Democrats.  The bigger problem, the real problem is that it is counter to the intention of the Constitution.

Hillary Clinton wants your vote, stupid!

Note:  I want to thank Deplorable Keith H on Twitter for providing me with the visuals for this post. Twitter has become an elitist progressive corporation but it's a useful tool while not every conservative voice has been banned yet.  When that time does come, I'd urge every conservative to cancel their Twitter account.  Until then, use the platform I say.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, liberals and Democrat registered voters should be finding out how Hillary Clinton and her campaign team feel about them.  It turns out, they don't think very highly of you.

They do however, think pretty highly of your vote.  The quotes in the pictures on the left are from Hillary Clinton via WikiLeaks.

You thought the bucket of deplorables was bad, but Democrat voters are worse - she sees you as a "bucket of losers".  Everyone to her is in some bucket it would seem, and none of the buckets are particularly desirable to her.

Click to enlarge and read.

The second picture is an excerpt from Hillary's speech to Goldman Sachs.

I said should be finding out, but I don't know that they ever will.  Now we see why the media at outlets like CNN want to control what you see or hear or read about the WikiLeaks releases on Hillary Clinton.

If the liberal elite knew that you thought they were dumb, they would not be able to count on your vote.

They can't have that - they need your vote or they'll not be able to consolidate their power and continue to chip away at the remaining bits of real democracy and liberty in America.  If you empower them, you are sealing your own fate.

As a very concerned outside observer, I'm just saying.

Get Ready for Stupid, UK style

The British parliament is set to vote tonight (ET), to ban Donald Trump from its soil.  I'm not sure they all realize that he might become president of the country's biggest ally.  But it isn't really about that is it?

As Allahpundit at HotAir points out;

Assuming that actually banning Trump is off the table, what’s the point of today’s debate? Those who follow British politics regularly would know better than I, but I assume that it’s mainly about making Cameron’s government uncomfortable — not only will they have to grudgingly defend admitting Trump to the UK so as not to create awkwardness with Americans but they’ll have to distinguish the decision not to ban Trump with previous decisions to ban other controversial speakers. One Muslim MP from Labour is eager for that discussion...

It's all about optics. Classic Left tactic. But pass or fail, this is stupid.  Should Trump become president, he doesn't seem like the type to forget this stuff.

While I'm not sure I want to see Trump as the GOP nominee,  anything the left and liberals do to alienate him, I'm good with.  The more they spend time attacking him, the harder he will attack back, and the less attacks there are focused on Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Christie et. al.  Trump is running cover for other Republicans both at home and abroad.  Should he not eventually win, think of all that ink, punditry SuperPAC attack money gone to waste while another winner emerges with months of liberal attacks wasted.

That makes me happy, because the stupid on the left will have paid dividends on the right.

Tackle Trump head on, don't dis-invite him!

For all the hand wringing over Trump vs. Megyn Kelly, and Trump's tweet, did it not occur to anyone that dis-inviting Trump from an event in Atlanta might be the sign Trump takes as Republicans and their supporters not being fair to him that causes him to decide to run as an independent and guarantee Hillary a victory?

Trump is not demanding that he be crowned the GOP candidate.  He's asking to be treated fairly. Yes his comments against Kelly were harsh. Does that merit an exclusion from the Atlanta event?  It seems a little overly high-handed and harsh. And Trump would not be out of line thinking he's being singled out. So banning him from the debate - he's still leading in the polls for now - is asking him, taunting him, into initiating a third party run.

Damn conservatives can be so stupid some times! 

Erik Erickson, whom I normally respect, should confront this head on if he has an issue with Trump.  After all, if Trump eventually offends every conservative and Republican, he's not going to win anything.  And the more opportunities he has to speak, the sooner his act will wear thin.  And if not, well than maybe you're being too thin-skinned about his comments. 

Don't be a coward.  Give him a platform, Trump will bring his own rope. Don't give him one and he'll bring a gun.

Business can have unintended consequences too

Not quite what I had in mind.

Government typically doesn't do too many things right. This we know. From the military overpaying suppliers for hammers, to 46 million people on foods stamps clearly making visible the fact that the welfare state model is worse than broken, the government gets an enormous amount wrong. But they are not alone. Business makes an awful lot of mistakes too. Business decisions from off shoring jobs without a full impact assessment to tightening credit requirements are often made in knee jerk fashion focused on short term thinking. I'll give you a personal example and then explain why it's not sour grapes on my part. The anecdote itself is not the point of my argument in any case.

It's the Wild West, Stupid.

It doesn't have a nice acronym like Keep It Simple Stupid, and it's derivative of the Clinton War Room's It's the Economy stupid, but it it really is the Wild West, stupid.

One of the things about the left that frustrates those of us in the right is their inability to apply learnings to their belief system. Instead of learning from the evidence, they contort the reality of the evidence to fit their belief system. The biggest single example of this pretzel-logic taken to inane lengths is the fundamental disbelief in the concept of individual liberty. At every turn throughout American history, indeed world history, the greatest advancements in human achievement have come inextricably linked to freedom. Rather than a laundry list of socialism's abundant failures, take a look at it from the reverse angle.

When the Internet bubble burst, it wasn't a collapse of innovation; it was a collapse of over-valuation. The Internet and all of the innovations associated with it exploded with the Moore's-Law-like speed, or greater. Compare today's internet to Compuserve circa 1987. Twenty two years and it's like Boeing versus the Wright Brothers. And why did and does the Internet continue to quickly expand in what it can and does do? Because it's the Wild West. It's not regulated. The government isn't involved to distort nature. Yes, the capitalist economy is the ultimate human version of natural selection - survival of the fittest. Actually it goes natural selection one better - the best and brightest don't just survive - they thrive. In a Wild West environment, experimenters are free to try out their ideas, some more risky than others, but all with the possible potential for big payoffs, and catastrophic failure. But the advances just keep on coming.

Imagine explaining Youtube, illegal file sharing, ultra high download speeds, NetFlicks or any of a million other innovative ideas brought to life, to someone in 1987. They'd get it but they probably wouldn't believe it was possible with their 486 and 28.8k modem, because it wasn't possible back then.

That Wild West environment, that sense of free-for-all of innovation ALWAYS, ALWAYS delivers improvement. Competition is primal, and it pays off for society if allowed to flourish. Somebody forgot to tell that to the gurus in Washington. Yes, there's a downside to the free-for-all approach, which is why capitalism isn't pure capitalism anywhere in the world. It's why the government does get the opportunity to play referee.

[Reading Note: Apply Jesse Jackson intonation to the following paragraph]

But it should only be to play referee. Not participate. Not dictate, Not debate, or castrate. But simply adjudicate, and only where it's needed.

People think that the government is needed to protect the people from themselves, forgetting that protection from government gets harder with every invasive law that gets passed. If you allow a government the opportunity to tell you you can't idle your car for more than three minutes because it's causing an environmental disaster, how long before they change it to one minute? Amazingly enough not that long.

If you allow the government the opportunity to decide and regulate but do not limit their power to no more than that, they will inevitably go further than they should. The other recent bubble, the housing bubble was not a result of deregulation but a result of government trying to do social engineering with the powers they'd given themselves that no one spoke up to contest.

Is that worth peace of mind? Is there happiness to be found in subjugation because the consequences of the alternative are worse? I guess for some the answer to that is yes. But show them the full picture of a slightly regulated Wild West versus an autocracy and I think the Wild West would get a fair bit more than 54% of the popular vote. What's worse - a recession or no freedom? Besides, governments can't stop recessions any more than they can stop a tsunami or a hurricane.

Recessions are bad, but they are capitalism's influenza virus. Unlike people, the economy needs to be subject to periods of weakness from time to time to clear out the inefficiencies and reallocate the resources (capital or labor) to better suited purposes. Yes they are upsetting and come with often frightening changes. That's why the government is there with a safety net to get people through those difficult transitions. But it isn't there to keep the deadwood afloat. It sounds harsh, but it's always for the best. The economy will roar out of the back end if left predominantly to it's own devices, because it can.

But what about jobs going offshore the liberals cry? Stop creating artificial minimum wages and those jobs will return, guaranteed. If you can make a pair of running shoes in China for 50 cents and in America for 50 cents, they'll be made here, because there's no (or smaller) shipping cost with the American labor. And with no minimum wage laws, people would be willing to come here legally to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, because that labor will be needed. It would go a long way to fixing the government's current account situation too.

Of course that's more than a little extreme. But hey, the country has tried extreme before (think November 2008) and on blind faith. Come to think of it, perhaps an incremental approach might be wiser. Wiser still, the government should remember that innovation requires the liberty of the Wild West.  If it doesn't remember soon, things really could turn out like the O.K. Corral vision of the Wild West.