David French’s Candidacy For President Shows That Cuckservatives Can’t Stop Donald Trump

While polling has shown that the majority of Republicans have fallen in line behind Donald Trump now that he’s secured the presidential election, the shrinking #NeverTrump contingent continues to bark and woof on Twitter. Chief among the recalcitrant is notorious neocon and Weekly Standard founder and editor Bill Kristol, who announced earlier this week that National Review contributor David French would be the presidential nominee of his new third party, the Renegade Party.

French’s selection was roundly mocked by both leftists and conservatives, with his relative obscurity, creepily protective relationship with his wife and fondness for multiracial adoption singled out for scorn. The fact that Kristol was unable to convince any well-known anti-Trump Republican politicians—such as 2012 failed candidate Mitt Romney or Ben Sasse—to join his party shows the weakness of the #NeverTrump movement. Nobody wants to sacrifice their political career for a long-shot candidacy that, at most, would deliver the White House to Hillary Clinton.

The very branding of Kristol’s party is an absolute disaster: beyond the questionable implications of the word “renegade,” the name suggests an out-of-touch old man trying to be hip. For the past year, cuckservatives have desperately tried to reverse-engineer Trump’s popularity among young people and use it for their own ends; for example, Marco Rubio began insulting Trump in the final weeks of his campaign, thinking that the reason people like Trump is because he insults his opponents constantly. It’s because of this that the Renegade Party is doomed to failure.

Who Is David French?


To his credit, David French has a few merits to his character that put him a cut above the average cuckservative. For example, he’s a military veteran who served a tour in Iraq, a stark contrast to other neocons who agitate for war despite having either weaseled their way out of the draft or never volunteered to begin with. He also (presumably) has a good relationship with his wife, which will appeal to the dried-out evangelicucks salty over Trump’s supermodel wife.

However, French is far too much of a cuck to make an impact in the American political landscape. During the lead-up to the Republican primaries, he was a loud-and-proud member of the Church Lady brigade, fainting on the couch every time his delicate ears heard the word “cuckservative.” Like many cucks, he also has an unhealthy fixation on multiracial adoption, having adopted a black baby in a desperate attempt to avoid being called racist. French and his ilk lack the backbone to make an impression on voters.

A good historical comparison to French and the Renegade Party would be the independent candidacy of John Anderson in 1980. An obscure 10-term Republican congressman from Illinois, Anderson ran for president as an independent with the backing of portions of the GOP establishment who found Ronald Reagan unpalatable due to his “extreme” views. While he initially did well in the polls, Anderson’s numbers slid as Election Day approached and Republicans united behind Reagan. In the end, he only won 6.6 percent of the vote, concentrated in left-leaning states like New York that might otherwise have been won by Jimmy Carter.

Similarly, Kristol and French have massively overestimated the Republican and conservative angst against Trump. With the exception of a few talking heads and some intransigent members of the Cruz cult, most GOP members have united behind their presumptive nominee. The fact that the Renegade Party has only gotten about 5,000 followers on Twitter in a month shows this. We are in a realigning election, where political certainties of past decades are being rewritten, and the success of Trump’s candidacy shows this.

#NeverTrump Means #AlwaysHillary


We saw another third-party cuckservative failure over the weekend when the dumpster fire known as the Libertarian Party nominated has-been GOP flacks Gary Johnson and William Weld as their presidential ticket. Ever since Trump clinched the Republican nomination last month, cucks had been threatening to vote Libertarian because they view him as insufficiently conservative, oblivious to the fact that libertarians are not conservative by definition (due to their support for social liberalism and opposition to the foreign wars that cuckservatives love).

Ever since Ron Paul left the national stage four years ago, libertarianism has been progressively taken over by leftist attention whores such as Julie Borowski and Cathy Reisenwitz, who’ve subverted it into another outpost of social justice. Similarly, the Libertarian Party has become a coffee klatch for failed Republicans like Johnson and 2008 presidential nominee Bob Barr, who received fewer votes than also-run Ralph Nader despite being hyped up as the Libertarians’ strongest candidate to date.

Gary Johnson’s strategy for fighting Donald Trump is to call him “racist,” because that line of attack has worked so well in the past. Choosing William Weld—the former governor of that bastion of liberty and small-government conservatism known as Massachusetts—as his running mate has also alienated traditional supporters of the Libertarian Party. I anticipate the Johnson/Weld ticket will massively underperform in the general election.

The simple reality is that Donald Trump is the new face of the Republican Party. The Israel-obsessed, warmongering, corporate tax cut wing of the GOP had their time in the sun, and all they’ve done is give us eight years of Barack Obama. The future of the GOP is protectionist and nationalist. Anyone who doesn’t climb aboard the Trump Train will get crushed beneath its wheels.

Read More: Cuckservative Rick Wilson Melts Down In Response To Donald Trump Candidacy

127 thoughts on “David French’s Candidacy For President Shows That Cuckservatives Can’t Stop Donald Trump”

    1. That’s the most horrific thing I’ve seen today.
      100% accurate !
      100% on point !
      200% strangely funny!

        1. The mother first said don’t swear in front of my child. Then the protestors responded “fuck you” then she answers “go fuck yourself, then the cameraman get very close from her saying “don’t swear in front of children” with a snarky bitchy tone.
          Then the dad comes and say “stay the fuck away from my wife and kids” the cameraman asks “what’s your name ?” twice, he answers “John Smith” and then “boom”. You can hear the cameraman doing a sort of womanly noise like “aargh” and then “Help ! Help ! Help me !”

        2. Of course, then it would have been more difficult to extract the video and post it on the internet for everyone to laugh at.

        3. That’s true. It’s a bit of a catch 22. Destroy the phone and eliminate evidence that could be used against you or let him keep the phone so other libs can see that they can’t just do anything they want without consequences. I can see a whole campaign where videos like this are posted everywhere. Maybe then libs will show a little common courtesy in public due to the fear of getting pummeled.

        4. What’s truly great is the little liberal faggot would have been the one that posted the video himself. Somehow he thought this made him look “better” than the people he was harassing.
          Same with the “conductor we have a problem…” libtard. These people are truly mentally ill, and have no problems sharing it with the world.

        5. Totally agree. For some strange reason, people typically laugh when a grown man is screaming “Help me! Help me!” like a little bitch, especially when he brought it on himself by being a fucking twat to a lady with an infant. If he had a lick of sense, when that guy started approaching him he would have said, “You know what, I was wrong and I’m sorry. Please don’t send me to the hospital.” Instead he double downed by going, “What’s your name? What’s your name?” What did he think was going to happen? It was totally clear what the intentions of that dude was and it WASN’T to have a pleasant conversation.

        6. Our screeching liberal nu-male felt completely safe: No one is allowed to strike a womyn. :^)

      1. Sjw’s , always acting tough, but a slight escalation of confrontation and they’re left bewildered and afraid….

        1. The SJW found out that when around an alpha, especially if he is guarding his woman and child, you don’t be even a teeny wheeny threatening. Shitlibs like this never defend anything unless in a mob and have no conception.
          Also if you see a very good looking young mother, no skanky tats or hair, around like that expect an alpha male husband.

      2. LMAO.
        “Help me! Help me!”
        The impotent cries of the sjw. Did he think that his cowardly brethren would do anything to help him??
        All that screaming and whining All they did was let the world know who to punch.

    2. Huh. Watching that first mental patient throw that bin around and scream, I’m thinking the compassionate thing to do is start calling paramedics on them.
      “911, yes. There’s a person here who’s acting erratically, and I think they might be a danger to themselves or others. Could you send some paramedics and a police escort?”

    3. funny, but ultimately sad- kids need their mommies, dont they?

    4. Damn I’m starting to wonder if millennial women who were raised in the mid-late 90’s in day care centers, tossed aside by selfish abandoning mothers working stupid stick-in-the-mud ‘indipendent woman’ jobs are DAMAGED GOODS! Wow, virgin or not, millenial chicks in their breeding prime become DAMAGED GOODS when mama was a selfish bitch who threw their toddler butt away into some McDaycare!
      Now it’s well known that foster kids are damaged. Of course who wouldn’t suffer some sort of PTSD from being held against their will in foster care as their family is depatriarched and their blood tribe is blown to smithereens by bloodthirsty warmongering jew-marx-fem-lez political socialist service operatives. Any child would be damaged if they were held in this fashion as war booty, captive like a POW in the state’s war against trad. family.
      But the damage of being abandoned to daycare? There sure are an epidemic amount of damaged bitches out there. Mothers need to shut up, tit feed and keep their ass domestic. No job but HOME JOB.
      What we see now is a lot of kids raised in daycare in the 80’s now don’t want their sorry old retired ‘professional’ working bitch mother around. She shuffled their tiny diapered butts into daycare, so now the adult X’ers are sending their own parents in droves into old folk’s homes where they over medicate them and literally poison them to death. Adult X’ers are saying ”you threw me into day care so why shouldn’t I throw you into some old-folk’s home to rot?” Liberated working mothers were the problem and were by far liberal and not red pill or traditional. True red pill parents are the exception. Please save them. They always breed respect from successive generations and they pass down red pill wisdom. Don’t send elderly red pill folks to die in the institutionalized gulags for the ‘elderly’. But the old socialists, fuck them. The socialist scrough that sat there and said ”moooo” when the country and culture was flushed down the toilet, hell throw ’em all away. The new revived breed of man and patriarch is up and becoming. A generation of men that will breed respect from every following generation. Man is on the rise.

  1. Forney falls to the last refuge of a scoundrel: the chicken hawk attack. Having been to the middle east twice, there are times I advocate in favor of both wars but imply I never served a day. When the chicken hawk defense comes out, I I hit back with my service record.
    Whether or not you served in the military has no bearing on the merits of being for or against a war. “Chickenhawk” is the last refuge of an anti-war activist who ran out of arguments. It is a logical fallacy and ad hominem attack.
    Shame on you, Forney. But since you bring it up, when did you serve again? When we’re you in the Middle East? How many years did you spend in the intelligence community understanding the local situation and asking natives in Arabic what was going on?
    If we’re going to go ad hominem, fuck it.

    1. Are you referring to this portion of the article?
      “To his credit, David French has a few merits to his character… he’s a military veteran who served a tour in Iraq, a stark contrast to other neocons who agitate for war despite having either weaseled their way out of the draft or never volunteered to begin with.”

    2. I don’t think you get it. A chicken hawk is one who advocates a hostile national platform but scorns service. They would never let their kids enlist or commission and they generally look down on the working class proles that serve. Sure, they might praise the services in public, just like white liberals promote public school and then send their kids to private school.

      1. And that’s okay. Because the merits of a war aren’t based upon the credentials of those advocating it. Like literally every single issue, the merits of a position of an issue are based solely on the facts. I don’t care of an American Neo-Nazi advocates (for some odd reason) for Israel: if the facts pan out, it doesn’t matter who is advocating them. The facts are above personal credentials or failings.
        Stand above it. Be able to listen to the arguments of detestable people. Because if you do, you’ll be able to destroy them better in debate. Don’t do it for the facts, or the truth, or what is genuinely right for America. Set aside ad hominem bias to make yourself a more proficient debater.

  2. If you needed anymore evidence that conservatives are simply attempting to throw the race (because ‘front-runner’ Jeb Bush wasn’t enough), Gary Johnson and David French should about do it. Neither of these two could win anything if they tried. All they can do is giftwrap the Whitehouse to Hillary.

    1. “Conservatives” would rather lose the election than support someone who may threaten to change a system they benefit from. They are no different from Democrats when it comes to expanding government and spending other people’s money. They are leftists.

      1. Yep. I think it’s incredibly amusing when people say that the parties are heading to the Right. Not even close.

        1. Agreed. Media and a large segment of the populace is skewed so far to the left that there are sites and articles like these trying to validate that “heading to the right” idea and convince people of it by presenting Clinton as a “moderate,” makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

        2. As if there was any dispute that the modern electorate has no clue as to the policies of the people they’re voting for…

        3. Well, becoming informed takes effort, it’s easier to just go along and have someone else do “life” for you. It even comes pre-packaged if you follow the other lemmings to the proper venues.
          It’s like ordering a combo meal at a fast food place, quick, simple, cheap, temporarily filling, bad for you in the short and long term, but always right there waiting when you’re ready for the next fix and showing you doctored footage in between to make it look more appetizing.

        4. Everybody is so damned left that simply being in the center is seen as being “on the right”. What bullshit.

      2. Yes, the upper elite in the GOP party. The rest of us aren’t getting a thing so it’s Trump the whole way.
        The whole system is afraid that the gravy train is coming to an end…it’s why they fear Trump and would rather have Clinton. It’s a pretty sad truth that we can all see now…one big party (and we’re not invited to it).

  3. LOL Wow, so, introduce someone most of us has never heard of, and think he has a chance against Trump. I was thinking, maybe it will be Michael Bloomberg or something, who would have had a good chance at siphoning votes away from both Trump and especially Hillary. Sorry, this dude has zero chance of even beating the Libertarian candidate, much less Democrat or Republican.
    On another note, I just watched the film Dirty Grandpa, and it’s a funny story of Alpha Robert Deniro trying to rehabilitate his pussy-drying beta grandson before he gets married to a shrill Jewish short haired aggressive career girl. He teaches him how to dress, game, and generally enjoy life instead of being a douchebag. It’s a very cliché plot (engaged guy meets someone from his past, has to decide what to do), but pretty damn funny.

    1. I also saw that film, surprisingly not shit. I mean the chick he ends up with… I don’t know and Deniro’s ending plot… Its a bit all over the place, but as a piece of entertainment fuck it, not bad.

    2. It’s a pity DeNiro isn’t “alpha” enough to refrain from starring in shitty movies like “Dirty Grandpa”.

      1. My thoughts exactly. On the bright side, he, Joe Pesci and Martin Scorcese are making a new mob movie. I think Al Pacino is in it as well.

        1. If Marty fucks this up like gangs of new toes there will be a legacy lost.

    3. Really, was it good? I hadn’t planned on seeing it cause I read it was garbage.

      1. It’s pretty mediocre, but for a comedy it’s above average. I had low expectations and enjoyed it.

        1. May be showing my age, but it brought me back to the early 2000’s when you had movies like Old School, Bad Santa, and the American Pie franchise. Not classics, but at least they tried to be funny or witty.

        2. Well, I wasn’t expecting anything on the level of Sam Kinison or Rodney Dangerfield, so it was alright for what it was. Which in a sad way was a blessing. A lot of movies these days make me feel like killing myself, they’re just so formulaic and predictable. So if I get a movie with at least some wit, it tells me the director is at least trying.

        3. Old School not a classic? I beg to differ. It is a brilliant social commentary on a mans search for true inner peace with chicks wrestling in KY and tits……

  4. Flaming cuck he certainly is. But never mock a person’s adoption choice.

    1. I’ve come to believe that interracial adoption, except in extenuating circumstances, should be prohibited. Nine times out of ten these people who are adopting are doing it for the status, not for any genuine concern for the child’s well-being.

      1. I can see both sides to this. On the one hand it can end with the child confused and feeling like an outcast or like they are out of touch with people who look most like them.
        On the other, some families adopt to try and give an orphan child better conditions during early development, others are like Angelina Jolie.
        And then there are the ones looking for servants or sex slavery.
        But at the same time, without mockery we wouldn’t have shaming, and without shaming, fatties and sluts wouldn’t have anyone else to blame for their own failures, and then we wouldn’t have their narcissistic first-world entitlement complaints about us to mock and so on, it’s symbiosis at its finest and must be on the table for all things.

      2. While that’s possible, if you’re already at the point where you’re adopting, you’re a pretty generous person. It would be ludicrous to actually prohibit it. Plus, I feel like if you’re a nonwhite child, you’re kinda screwed if you have to wait for a nonwhite person to adopt you.

        1. It would only be misplaced if they somehow didn’t deserve to be adopted. In the highly unlikely event that I ever adopt, I would probably adopt a white kid so we relate to each other better, but there is certainly nothing wrong with adopting someone who looks different than you.

        2. For the record, I am not condoning or condemning anything. Just pointing out that whites, especially northwestern European whites, are far more altruistic than any other race, which may explain why whites adopt more than non-whites.

        3. Because David “cuck” French was making a cynical political based move with the adoption. It’s something Hollywood celebrities have been doing for awhile now, and like a good cuck, he has no problem following the mainstream crap.

        4. Exactly….. they fop off all their problem children to white couples with a good dose of white guilt while the minorities have the government pay for all their illegitimate offspring.

      3. Cartier on my wrist, birkenstocks on my feet, and a black baby on my back … hello world I’ve made it!

    2. You bet, just look at the generosity of Obamazmama’s boyfriend Soetero – he adopted young Barryboy and even gave him the gift of paradise with possibly 72 old white guys’ cocks to suck (just like Chicago) by making sure he heard the beautiful call of the Muezin 5 times a day while receiving his indoctrination at the madrassah like all good moslem kiddies.

    1. Yea instead of telling her that if she cheated on him she would be out the door….” conversations about life and faith”. WTF is it like in his house? Jeeeezzzzzuuuusssss…..oh yea their little black bundle of joy……

  5. If this fails, neocons could well be sidelined, which would be interesting.
    It’s rare though to see such an overt attempt to subvert the popular will even from neocons

  6. If both Trump and Clinton get ousted, this could be the dawn of a battle between French and Sanders. British comedy at its finest. Not

    1. What would Trump be ousted for, though? Wishful thinking, really. Other than gassing six million Jews he’s done nothing illegal. (Running a school with a few dozen unsatisfied customers isn’t a crime. Now Hillary on the other hand… )

        1. No we’re not. But my comment was that he has jewish family so why is there a comment about gassing jews – where does that come from? Trump is not anti-jewish, even if people like Bill Kristol don’t like him. So why would he be accused of being so? The above seems like an effort to unfairly associate Trump with anti-semitism. Neo-cons have their own distinct interests distinct from everybody else in society including jews

  7. Maybe slightly off-topic, but is it me?
    Is it oddly coincidental that this most recent cuckservative push is coming on in the news cycle right at the same time as this new ‘study’, pushing that younger men don’t identify as fully masculine, is hitting all the usual suspects? https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/05/23/decline-manly-man/
    (67 comments on it, from a site which I’ve never heard of before as the ‘source,’ that coordinates their polling with Huffington Post and seems to completely conveniently exclude the recent rise of neomasculinity and red pill theory)
    So, a strong push for an alternative to the ‘traditionalist’ public’s presidential candidate while also reminding us that we in the manosphere are irrelevant and should “get with the program?”
    Naw, such a thing couldn’t be a coordinated effort by both sides of the coin to keep power and keep men from standing up again, where is my head at?

      1. Not sure I follow your reply, my entire point is that is the message they are trying to push, our “irrelevance” as men and as voters (which is the opposite of the truth and what they most fear, the actual effectiveness and proven relevance of men taking back the power they’ve stolen), of course it is silly to try and convince us we are irrelevant or see us that way, but they are doubling down, doing it anyway, “no men’s movement here folks, see how the youngsters don’t even identify with the concept of “masculinity?” “no majority push for Trump as a candidate, better to pick this other guy.”
        Of course its as silly as any other argument SJWs make, but they don’t care so long as their message gets out and more people chant it.

        1. Heh, my brain is a little fuzzy today so my comment might have been unclear (Arrogant Bastard Ale and Martinis will do that to you).
          I was agreeing with you. The first sentence was more of a general statement than directed at you. We, as men, have the choice to be irrelevant (be quiet and stay in the shadows) or to assert ourselves on our environment.

        2. Got it.
          Like I said, I wasn’t following well and really tried reading it a couple times, but just couldn’t connect, so it’s me on the fritz this morning.
          That last part there about asserting ourselves on our environment is brilliant and should be our ROK motto.

        3. Forgot where I heard that statement but it resonated with me. Men asserting themselves onto their environment is what has progressed us to typing on our computers and phones right now. It is a noble thing for us to take part in this ancient tradition.

  8. One thing most people don’t know is that George H. W. Bush ran against Reagan as a pro-choice Republican. He was the pick of the Republican elite.
    And he lost.

  9. French’s agreement with article by Kevin Williamson about white working class people is another reason not to vote for him. Here the money shot quote of that Willimson article:
    “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.”
    Source:( http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432796/working-class-whites-have-moral-responsibilities-defense-kevin-williamson“)
    The only thing I be waiting from the Renegade Party statement from them when Mike Cernovich getting the metaphor scalp of Bill Kristol,

    1. NRO. The cheerleadering squad for RINOs. Glad Bill Buckley is dead and doesn’t see what NR has become.

    2. “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.

      For a minute I thought this referred to the black underclass.
      Look, white working class men had productive lives in an industrial economy until a generation ago. Most of the country’s black population lost its purpose farther back when agriculture in the South mechanized, and it has never recovered, nor does it have any useful purpose now other than as a reservoir of voters for cuck politicians. The empowered whites who call blacks obsolete farm equipment left over from the 19th Century come pretty close to the truth.
      Just from economic considerations alone, I would change government policies to restore the productivity of the former over wasting more money on the latter.

      1. Are you pro-white or are you just anti-black? Almost every single comment you make around here is a clone of the others.

      2. I’m thinking white men not being productive has more to do with lack of need than lack of anything else.
        With welfare taking care of the women and the kids, and to a large degree the men as well, where is the incentive?
        Once this whole thing blows up and the money is gone, watch them all get productive pretty fucking quickly. And women will start trying to hold on to men rather than kicking them to the curb.

      3. “For a minute I thought this referred to the black underclass.”
        Projection is the norm for cucks, fems, SJWs, etc.

  10. Writing about this non factor, is what is going to give him traction if he does ever get any. This is very unnecessary and conversely is exactly one of the ways Trump made his rise. By people writing about him and giving him publicity. I do not approve of this as I would not have even known about it had I not read it here.
    Matt, if you fancy yourself a controversial figure base on your opinion vs societies norm, don’t put people like this on the net in a fashion that libs and serial Outrage-ists can latch on to simply to spite the Red Pill types like us they so despise.

    1. He won’t get anywhere. Trump had a personal brand going back over 30 years. The articles about him here will do nothing. Ballot deadlines are already passing and for him to even get on the ballot in important states is a very remote possibility – zero brand, zero organization, zero money.
      This is basically just a thought experiment by the always dim Bill Kristol. His cuck hasn’t even made a decision yet, and North Carolina expires on the 9th.

  11. Apparently “conservatives” these days treat elections as a kind of Conservative Special Olympics, instead of running them as serious projects to try to wrest some power in this country and stop its decline. It looks as if they’ve accepted Aaron Clarey’s world view, instead of taking control of a deteriorating situation so that they can write a new book titled Enjoy the Plateau.

  12. As a fan of Forney, I have to question this statement and wonder if he didn’t just write it in haste:
    “cucks had been threatening to vote Libertarian because they view him as insufficiently conservative, oblivious to the fact that libertarians are not conservative by definition (due to their support for social liberalism and opposition to the foreign wars that cuckservatives love).”
    Although Ron Paul’s absence has moved libertarianism closer to libertinism, I’m surprised he would use terminology like socially liberal since the terms socially liberal and conservative are misnomers. For example, I have gay friends and don’t stand for or against gay marriage, but feel the government should stay out of marriage altogether. I like to smoke weed. Abortions should be saved just for rapes and incest. Am I socially conservative or socially liberal? Many libertarians feel this way as well. Also, the second part about foreign wars; if support of foreign of wars is “cuckservative”, then their lack of support for it would make libertarians more conservative, since they’re isolationists.
    Also, while Julie Borowski is most certainly an attention whore, is she a leftist? She is for lower taxes and against abortions.

    1. I never understood why abortion somehow is linked to left or right leaning things in any way…
      It’s just either have or not have a legalized way of murdering unborn children, it has nothing to do with big vs small government or constitutionalism vs living document/socialist/democratic extremism?
      My personal opinion is that there should only be the sufficient “government” required to uphold people’s basic constitutional rights, maybe border control if needed but nothing more. No politics, no votes.

      1. Pro-choice is a leftist concept since it comes from the feminist notion of “it’s my body and I’ll do what I want to.” It’s not *directly* linked, but the trend is that people who support abortion on demand are also proponents of big government (i.e. it’s my body, I’ll get pregnant as much as I want and the government will give me free abortions if I want them to). There are libertarian women who are pro-choice, so then it becomes a moral issue, and fundamental Judeo-Christians values are what Western society are based on. If killing a baby in the womb is okay, then it’s okay to kill a baby out of the womb and soon it’s okay to kill whoever and society falls apart. The conservative wants to conserve Western society and its principles. That’s how it all ties together. And technically It has to do with constitutionalism because, if a baby is a person, it is then protected under the constitution, or at least the baby’s rights are until the kid turns 18. With that said, I’m not sure I 100% agree with making a 14 year girl who was raped carry through with her pregnancy. In cases of the sluts we all like to bang, best bet is to use precaution and not be in that situation in the first place.

        1. Hmm, the fact that feminism has leftist elements is not the same as saying leftist ideology is feministic… That’s a fallacy.
          The more I think about it the more I circle back to men simply being more capable of objective morality, and this is actually borne out of giving women the right to vote in a way.
          If men were not now a minority in the decision making, I don’t think we would ever have ended up here.

        2. I think leftist ideology is very feministic; the whole concept of leftism is essentially to make men more like women; dependent on big daddy government. The whole notion of giving the women the right to vote was that we were lead to believe they could think as rationally and objectively as any man. The women that ARE rational and objective in their thinking – and they do exist – are not feministic, not left wing and essentially think like men. This is of course a very basic breakdown. A rational leftist – man or woman – just doesn’t yet realize that he or she is a conservative.

        3. Ok, here I will somewhat agree, leftism as I see it however is more about ‘sharing’ than it is so much government worship at least in its more ideological form. But indeed both he sharing and the dependency on government or something bigger are feminine traits taken too far. This is I think why we only have this problem since women got the right to vote.

      2. “It’s just either have or not have a legalized way of murdering unborn children, it has nothing to do with big vs small government or constitutionalism vs living document/socialist/democratic extremism?”
        I would posit that the topic of abortion is indeed a governmental issue, at least in the USA. The Declaration of Independence states:
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
        There is a reason these three rights are listed in the order that they are. Life is the most important of the three rights. Without the right to live, you cannot be free. If you are not free, then you cannot pursue what makes you happy. If you believe an embryo/fetus is a living individual, then to support abortion goes against what the USA was founded on. Just my $0.02.

        1. The constitution itself is not related to governmental things, fundamental rights are not and never have been the purview of governments regardless of how much they would like them to be, and sometimes manage to convince people.
          The principles of the constitution would not change in the absence of the printed document, those are universally accepted human values.
          So in my view your answer doesn’t directly address my question since I don’t agree on the base you build it on.
          That’s my 2 euro cent ;-).

        2. The core at least of the constitution is in a sense stating what’s obvious to any wise rational man, per the part you yourself quoted.
          “We hold these truths to be self evident…”
          So the point in my view of the constitution is in no way that government grants you this, or is supposed to guarantee them. It is there to point out what’s obvious to the wise rational man to those who are not wise rational men.
          Government if any kind is however meant to uphold these values, as naturally is every other entity o there.
          The constitution is the foundational document of a nation, not a government and these two are not synonymous.

        3. With all due respect The Articles in the Constitution are all about the form and function of the branches of the Federal Government. I believe you may be confusing the Article and Amendments.

        4. CS Captain:
          I think you are mistaking the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution.
          The Declaration was the Founder’s way of giving the middle finger to the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and simply states all rights come from God (or if you are a Randian, the nature of man).
          The Constitution is ‘the form of the destructor’, if you will; it’s basically a code of conduct for the government that ‘We the People’ establish.

        5. I do believe a fetus is alive, but I don’t want Shani’qua shitting out welfare babies. So I would call my personal beliefs “Free abortion on demand in the ‘hood.”

      3. Leftists are usually feminists. Feminists are all “its my body and a fetus is a lump of tissue I can can remove at any time I want” . Those on the right are not as or even at all feminist.

        1. Hmm, this however is the same “logic” as: all the black guys I see are drug dealers so all blacks are drug dealers and all drug dealers are black.
          It doesn’t hold water.
          I am aware that most people are lazy and irrational and incapable of rational thinking but I think there has to be more to it, like substituting Gods morality with whatever is permitted being moral. Still same error of logic though…

  13. Gary Johnson is a yuge faggot. Libertarians only care about fag sex and drugs now. What ever happened to the libertarianism of based Murray Rothbard?

    1. Us Rothbard and Mises libertarians are still here. You’re talking about the “Left-libertarians”. They’re really just leftists with the word “libertarian” slapped on the end of it. You know how the Left is. Like a parasite they infect and destroy anything they touch.

  14. The Libertarian Party has just become the “Liberal Party For Hipsters.”

  15. “To his credit, David French has a few merits to his character that put him a cut above the average cuckservative. For example, he’s a military veteran who served a tour in Iraq, a stark contrast to other neocons who agitate for war despite having either weaseled their way out of the draft or never volunteered to begin with”
    (sigh)I will never understand why the manosphere thinks that the military is a bastion of masculinity. Raising a loving family, and supporting that extension is masculine. Being Israel’s attack dog doesn’t translate towards supporting a manly character. Just blindly following orders doesn’t make one a man.

    1. When I served there were at least no girly manginas there, and everyone did their job. It builds character, I used to think it was bullshit when my dad and others in the family who had served pushed me to, but after doing it I agree with them.
      You can do both, you are not forced to stay until your 65 in the service lol.
      Do a tour, two, get back with your ass intact and then get a decent job that pays well, and find your self a nice cute feminine well raised girl and have at it.
      At the end of the day I find that at least game, if you care about it, it a lot about how many boxes you check for a girl, to pass that first test at least.

    2. “I will never understand why the manosphere thinks that the military is a bastion of masculinity.”
      I’m guessing we are thinking pre-1860 America here. Or maybe ancient Sparta.
      War is a racket, though, as a highly decorated US major general once put it.

  16. We should be very grateful to be alive. We got to watch American neo-conservatism die a slow, painful death. Glorious.

  17. The Israel-obsessed, warmongering, corporate tax cut wing of the GOP had their time in the sun

    The alt-right seems like it gets its talking points from SJWs.

    1. What do you mean? They are a bunch of Israel obsessed warmongers! And the obsession with giving free blow jobs to the rich and corporations is just getting annoying…

      1. And the obsession with giving free blow jobs to the rich and corporations is just getting annoying…

        The notion that you’re giving freebies by cutting taxes is an old Leftist fallacy. The government isn’t “giving” anything to people by cutting taxes. It’s letting them keep more of what they earned.

        1. Corporations aren’t people, Corporations are persons. And currently, these persons are supposedly paying about 66% of what real people are paying. But that is ignoring the fact that because of loopholes they effectively pay ZERO in taxes.

      2. They are a bunch of Israel obsessed warmongers!

        Only if you listen to Leftist propaganda. Religious conservatism aside, the Right supports Israel because they’re natural allies in the war against Islam. It’s the only country in the Middle East that shares Western values and is under attack by the same enemy.

        1. “Only if you listen to Leftist propaganda.” Gandhi once stated in a letter: “As Gandhi once stated:
          “Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
          Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.”
          The Zionists have no legal or historical basis for creating their state. They had zero agreement with the natives allowing them to create their own state. If they wanted to live in Palestine, they should have become Palestinian citizens, not steal territory.
          “Only if you listen to Leftist propaganda.” Nope. I listen to the fact that Israel has absolutely no right to it’s territory, and the fact that they torment Palestinians.
          “It’s the only country in the Middle East that shares Western values” But they lack the single most important western value not seen in other cultures: Altruism. The Zionists not only don’t have that value, they are actually willing to harm and kill other people for their benefit.
          The fact is that people were already living in the Palestine region, Jews cutting out their own territory has caused a great amount of instability, this instability is ultimately what is causing Europe problem with Islam.
          “the Right supports Israel because they’re natural allies in the war against Islam…” “…and is under attack by the same enemy.”Yeah there is one big problem with that idea. Unlike the Jews, the Muslims in Palestine AREN’T KILLING THE CHRISTIANS. No really, go ask any Christian Palestinian or middle easterner, they all will despise Israel.

    2. The neocons aren’t even Jews. They’re Marxists.
      Actual Jews in Israel and the diaspora have nothing to fear from Donald Trump. It’s JINO cucks like Kristol who are in for a world of hurt.

    3. Tactics. Not talking points. There’s a reason many of us read “Rules for Radicals”.

  18. If I remember correctly, John Anderson wanted a 50 cent tax on a gallon of gasoline. Why I have no idea, but then neither did he. I guess his lefty constituency wanted to tax men who like to drive muscle cars because they were too masculine and wanted to discourage masculinity.

  19. Matt, you should take a bit more humble attitude this time around given that it’s your first real rodeo in politics. You’re principles are more pure, but until recently you weren’t even in the political fight.

  20. I had the same thoughts about the term “renegade” earlier today.
    In other contexts, it would be an endearing word – people are drawn rebels, especially Americans for obvious reasons, but in this context it’s a disaster since it’s basically implying thievery.
    It is a realigning election. I’ve written about this at length for months. I do believe the globalists are going to eventually be purged. http://masculineepic.com/index.php/2016/01/23/the-2016-popular-revolt-the-trump-train/

  21. The neoconservatives and cuckservatives turned the Republican Party into a joke. They had only 3 issues they competed on.
    1 Who hated corporate taxes more
    2 Who loved Israel the most
    3 Who loved Mexico and Mexican immigrants more than America. iJeb was particularly known for this.
    Plus they sucked up and caved in to the most demented social justice warriors like the blue pill cowards or ‘where the wind blows’ traitors such as McCain.
    Half these people need to get to the Democrats where they belong. The other half don’t belong in politics.

  22. In what world is Trump a conservative? Trump is a big government progressive. There is not a conservative bone in his body. You cannot “cuck” a myth.

  23. When they proudly announce 1000 twitter followers in the first hours, I thought, “Now that they have everybody who voted for !Jebez! in the primaries, where do they go from here?”
    I am surprised at the 5000 number. I did not know there were that many Republican Donors with vacation homes in the Hamptons.

Comments are closed.