Author Archive

NSFW Links: Nov 18, 2016

November 18, 2016 1 comment

These links are NSFW.

Reclining Beach Cuties: Nov 17, 2016 – Nekkid, mostly spread, amateur cuties on the beach.

Indoor Cuties: Nov 18, 2016 – Professional nekkid cuties posing indoors.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Interesting Links: Nov 18, 2016

November 18, 2016 Leave a comment

Here are links to a few more recent articles by Michael Tracey on the factors underlying victory of Trump and defeat of HRC and her supposedly impressive political machine.

Link 1: How Hillary Lost North Carolina: Most People Disliked Her

As the 7:30pm deadline in North Carolina approached, there was not a soul waiting on line at one Fayetteville, NC voting location. Earlier in the day I had been told by an election judge to expect a late rush, but it never seemed to come. As of 3:00pm, the judge said that turnout had decreased by around 6% in one heavily black precinct. Working that same site was Justin Shumpert, 21, a young black man and aspiring rapper. (Also the claimed cousin of Cleveland Cavaliers defensive monster Iman Shumpert.) He’d been paid $100 to hand out Democratic Party literature in front of the polling site, but when queried as to his own beliefs, he said he wouldn’t vote. “She lied too many times,” he said, explaining why he couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton. Asked who he’d prefer between the two candidates if forced to choose, Shumpert said Trump. “At least he says what he’s going to do. She just hides it,” he said. He added that he would’ve gladly voted for a third term of Barack Obama.

Link 2: Trump Was Always The Republican Candidate Best Positioned To Defeat Hillary

Which leads us to the question: would any of the other 2016 GOP candidates have beaten Hillary? My inclination is to conclude that another GOP candidate could have ran up the votes in traditional GOP strongholds (such as Texas) where Trump won but atrophied support compared to the Republican norm. It’s not clear, however, that any other GOP candidate could have performed as well as Trump did in the electorally-crucial states. One or two of the other GOP candidates could have possibly still beaten Hillary — Rubio, Kasich — but they would’ve had to figure out another path to do so. I don’t think either of them could have replicated Trump’s path.

Link 3: How The Cult of “Fact-Checking” Helped Trump Win

If you want to find someone to blame for Trump, blame your local idiot journalist who spent 1.5 years in 24/7 anti-Trump meltdown mode, overwhelming the vast majority of news consumers with hysterical “FACT-CHECK!!!!!!!” pronouncements and forcing them to tune out most of the coverage, including anti-Trump coverage that was totally warranted, such as his history of stiffing small business owners. Why did the Hillary campaign focus on lunatic Russia conspiracy theories instead of Trump’s bilking of mom-and-pop cabinet-makers? You’ll have to ask them.

I imagine these fact-check cultists screaming “Fact check! Fact check!” in an obnoxious, nasally nerd voice, all in unison, as if they’re so convinced that they are the final arbiters of truth in the universe. They are so insulated, and cocky, and lack any capacity for self-criticism or self-awareness, that they don’t realize their “fact-checking” crusade is the product of ideology, not direct communion with universal divine wisdom.

This gets to the “fake news” craze now sweeping the punditocracy. Rather than reckon with their own profound failures, the pundit set wants to turn its attention to the abyss of the internet, and get rid of all news they deem “fake.” First amendment implications of the endeavor aside, “pivoting” to this effort gets them off the hook for failing every step of the way for 1.5 years straight. (“You had one job!!!!!!!!!”). How about instead of going to town on random internet content-makers, these elite content-makers grapple with their own failures? That should be step one.

What do you think? Comments?

Now Ironic YouTube Clip about Trump’s Chances of Winning Presidency

November 15, 2016 3 comments

I first came across this clip about three months ago. It was originally made after Trump won the republican nomination in July 2016. The skit (in the clip) is about one part of an ostensibly liberal person trying to make himself believe that Trump will definitely lose the election, while the other realizes that Trump has a pretty good chance of winning the presidency.

One of the funnier gags in this clip involves the main character’s computer screen displaying webpages from a variety of mainstream predicting an almost inevitable Clinton triumph or a Trump defeat. In the end, the character suffers a cognitive dissonance when he realizes that the election might be far closer than he wants to believe and that Trump actually has a pretty decent chance of winning the presidency.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, LOL, YouTube

On the Implosion of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: 1

November 12, 2016 13 comments

As some regular readers of this blog might know, many of my predictions about the 2016 presidential election in USA have turned out to very prescient. But why take my word for it? Here are links to some older posts that predicted how the presidential campaign would shape up..

I first wrote that Trump was likely to the republican presidential candidate on August 31, 2015. Infact, I wrote a whole series of posts on why Trump was likely to win the republican nomination at a time when most people saw his candidacy as a joke or an act of self promotion. And it only gets better from there because I also wrote (on February 20, 2016) that Hillary Clinton would lose the presidential election against an even moderately competent Republican opponent. I also predicted that many blacks who voted for Obama would not vote for Hillary Clinton, in a post of February 11, 2016. I also predicted that the HRC ‘private email server and deleted emails’ controversy would be exposed as an example of legal corruption in a post on January 21, 2016.

I also wrote many other posts on why Trump’s numerous inflammatory statements and gaffes would not hurt his chances on August 9, 2016. I also wrote a short series on why all that fake moral Outrage by the ‘establishment’ against Donald Trump was unlikely to hurt his chances in the election. I even wrote about why HRC was losing in the raw polling data numbers to Trump and why attempts to prop her up my media and pollsters were likely to backfire on them. The point is that I was able to correctly predict the course of events weeks and months before they occurred. Most importantly, I did not back off on my predictions based on the latest flavors of bullshit propaganda propagated by the noise making machine known as the mainstream media.

So how was I able to make so many correct predictions, with proper reasoning, in an election season where almost every establishment presstitute, pundit , expert and pollster got it so horribly wrong? Well.. it is quite simple. I looked at all available evidence in an objective manner and without prejudice to its source- as long as said source did not try to hide its bias. Furthermore, some of my earlier posts on the decline of functional institutions in society had laid the groundwork for understanding this phenomenon. Having said that, let us look at the major reasons behind HRC’s loss to Donald Trump.

Firstly though HRC will eventually end up with slightly more total votes than Trump (who won the electoral college), she received somewhere between 9-10 million fewer votes that Obama in 2008 and about 5-6 million fewer votes that Trump in 2012. Think about that for a second.. HRC got a few million fewer votes than Obama in either of this two presidential campaign. In contrast to that, Trump’s final tally of total votes will be about the same as McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Perhaps even more problematically, HRC was not able to turn out all those supposedly democrat-voting white working class voters in ‘rust belt’ swing-states like Michigan and Wisconsin- which she lost. She even came close to losing supposedly ‘solid-blue’ states like Minnesota and Virginia.

Curiously, many of these working class white voters had no problem voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012- and were a large part of the reason he won the presidency with large margins in the electoral college on both occasions. Obama in 2008 and 2012 had also no problem winning the majority of votes of those making less than the average and median income, while HRC in 2016 barely won that demographic segment. HRC was not able to turn out as many black voters as Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Indeed, her inability to get enough black voters enthused by her candidacy probably cost her the election in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Then there is the issue of the HRC’s inability to get younger voters to vote for her in numbers they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I will post detailed figures and charts with graphical representation of these numbers in the upcoming post of this series. Until then, here is a quick synopsis of the immediate effects of HRC’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

1] The Clinton ‘brand’ and money-raising machine in the democratic party have been damaged beyond repair. Though the current members of DNC are downplaying the monumentality of this defeat, it is clear that the DNC and democratic party will have to reinvent and re-brand themselves. They will have to do this by getting rid of most of their current Clinton- and corporation- friendly members.. one way or the other

2] Main stream media outlets in USA (and many other countries) has publicly lost whatever shreds of credibility they still possessed. The same goes for all those “public intellectuals”, “talking heads” and “credentialed experts” who were almost unanimous in incorrectly predicting a HRC victory. Most pollsters, campaign advisers and strategists have been exposed as the borderline frauds they always were.

3] Trump has managed to destroy the credibility and future of both the Clinton and Bush political dynasty. As some of you might realize, there has been a Bush or Clinton on the presidential or vice-presidential ticket for most elections since 1980. This american version of dynastic politics is now over- at least for those two families. Hopefully, this starts an era where people who are not so connected to the political machines of either party have a decent chance of succeeding in politics at the national level.

What do you think? comments?

Quick Take on Implosion of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

November 9, 2016 9 comments

Here is my very quick take on what happened to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. I will write a more detailed post (and perhaps series) on that event later today. Some of you might remember that I predicted that Trump would win the republican nomination in August 2015. Also, I was saying that Trump would win against HRC as far back as August 2016- after the democrats conspired against Bernie.


What do you think? Comments?

Good Investigative Documentary about John Podesta: Nov 6, 2016

November 6, 2016 2 comments

I recently came across a good documentary about John Podesta, a person whose name you might have heard (once again) in recent weeks because of WikiLeaks. As some of you might have heard, WikiLeaks has, over the last month, posted the entire contents of his gmail account on their site.

This particular trove of emails reveals a lot about the inner workings of politics in USA and provides insights on what was actually going on inside her election campaign. They contain information about a variety of topics ranging from the less than favorable opinions about HRC and her family among the people who work for them to evidence of quid-pro-quo arrangements between many corporations + foreign governments and the Clinton Foundation/ Family.

It is, however, likely that many of you do not know much about John Podesta (and his brother) beyond them being some big influence peddlers in Washington DC. This YouTube documentary will provide a better understanding of what John Podesta (and his brother) actually do and why they are so powerful and influential in DC. The documentary is especially good at providing a context for the information uncovered in those leaked emails.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting Links: Nov 6, 2016

November 6, 2016 5 comments

Here are links to a few recent articles by Michael Tracy which explain the extent of corrupt, unethical and criminal behavior by Hillary Clinton, her husband and her cronies.

Link 1: Yes, The Clintons Are Uniquely Corrupt: A Grand Finale Essay

A question asked far less frequently, however, is how the Democratic Party entered the thrall of a widely-despised, historically unpopular, scandal-ridden candidate who at present appears to be statistically tied in the polls with the beauty pageant proprietor. Hillary Clinton’s flaws are manifold and have been well-known for ages; as just one example, prominent Democratic operatives groused behind the scenes long before the 2016 campaign formally began that malfeasance related to the Clinton Foundation would certainly become a major electoral liability. Their surmise was correct.

Link 2: Here’s Exactly How We Know That Hillary Is Under Criminal Investigation

When an investigation is “closed,” it’s not necessarily “closed” for all eternity. “Closed” isn’t a technical term. It just means the investigation is no longer being actively pursued. Any criminal investigation can be “re-opened” if additional evidence were to surface. According to Comey’s letter today, just that has happened: additional evidence has surfaced. As Comey put it, the newly-recovered emails “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” By “the investigation” he is referring to the “investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server.” That investigation was unambiguously criminal in nature, as demonstrated above. Therefore, if the investigation has resumed in light of newly-surfaced evidence, Hillary is once again under criminal investigation as of today, October 28, 2016.

Link 3: Hillary’s Harassment Brigades

As of late I’ve been on the receiving end of an absolute torrent of 24/7 vitriol. I can perfectly understand why this is so. First, we’re nearing the climax of a highly cantankerous presidential campaign, and tensions are heightened on all sides. On top of that, I regularly expound firm opinions about contentious topics, and some segment of internet users are bound to disagree with what I say. I like to think that my opinions are amply grounded in reporting and facts, but nevertheless, some readers will inevitably take exception and state their objections accordingly.

What do you think? Comments?