How I won a beer betting for Trump's win.

in #clinton3 years ago (edited)

I put here: http://imgur.com/a/aIkhc an image of a beer I've won betting for Trump to win the american presidency.

While it is not the most common beer you can find in your country (I wonder if you can find one out of Germany), the issue of this beer is not its value, but "how" I was 100% sure Trump had won the vote.

Beer

I used a very simple theorem which apply in almost all the western countries: "when the radical-chic are having a role on the stage, the leftist party always loses the vote". So I observed how Michael Moore, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus and others were having a huge role on the stage, and I just understood this was the case. Trump was perfectly right : he could have shoot people on the 5th avenue, and nothing changed. When the radical-chic are entering the stage, it doesn't really matters who is the opponent: he will win.

There are several reasons for that.

1 - The working class smells.

Yes. They are gross. Often they didn't had education. They sound vulgar, gross, rude and racist. Sure. Of course you can say no, the real working class looks like some propaganda manifest during the DDR, in the east Germany, sooo progressive and emancipated. Bullshit. Working class smells. I  can check when commuting, on the train: those people dress with working clothes, which are smelling like beer, hotdog, sweat, iron, concrete... you know? Yes, they smell.

They smell, they are gross, ignorant, rude, racist. If you cannot love them , and I repeat LOVE them as they are , if you despise  because they aren't cool, then stop saying you are a leftist. You are just a snob, and you should not even vote: democracy has some part, "demos", which is not for you. 

No, they don't want to emancipate: then give up with that. They DREAM  their son and their daughters to be like you, but they know this life is not their turn. And no, they aren't stupid  and they don't need to be lectured about life, universe and everything: you won't survive a single day in their shoes. 

There is only one thing you can do if you want to have them: LOVE them.

Is not that hard: my father was smelling of coal, steel, fire, sweat, so gross that could kill a wild boar just insulting it, and still I loved him. And I still miss that smell when I embraced him. Is not like a Sander's purity test, "you cannot take money from wall street and have the working class votes". You can. But what you need to do, is to LOVE them. As they are. Because they are like they are.  And there is nothing wrong.

So, either you start understanding that "important" and "cool" are different, and the working class is important even if not cool, or you will get their HATE. And believe me, when that people HATES, they bloody do it.

2 - Women issues are not really relevant.

If you are poor, your life sucks the same if you are a woman or you are a man. My grandma was a farmer, and she worked the whole daytime, as well as my grandpa. Their lives sucked exactly the same. There is no gender gap when both men and women's lives are terrible.

If you enter a post-crisis working class family, there is no "gender inequality", there is no "gender gap": maybe their lives sucks with different flavours depending by the gender, but in terms of magnitude it sucks as much as the same.

They will not receive the issue at all. Poor people, broken people, are  into the shit more or less the same. Sure, my grandmother had to care babies too. Which meant, when she was not working in the farm, my grandfather was due to work more and more: different kind of shit, still both shit. Until you don't want to look like a shit sommelier, to stress the gender issue with poor people or broken people is 100% pointless.

And what about gender issues if you aren't poor or broken? Well, "white man problem", or "rich people problem" if you prefer: kind of a problems 70% of the planet dreams to be entitled to have. More or less 60% women in the planet are working to have this $30000/year income gap. Or, at least, they would be happy having $3000/y income at all....

3 - Double standards are bad.

Miley Cyrus was campaigning for Clinton, and... wait. What?

Miley Cyrus is famous for soft-porn shows, basically like a youporn with a nice dress. Her business model is to tickle balls of a precise kind of male, which was exactly the kind of white male the Clinton campaign was pretending to be against. So, Miley Cyrus was looking like she said "dear gross, ignorant, gender unaware, sexist , vulgar white man, you are ok until you pay my bills to see myself shaking my ass on top of a dick-shaped cylinder on stage, but ... please don't dare to vote! I hate you when you vote, I only love you when you pay my bills".

So the sexism is a good business model when a non-talented woman wants do make money just doing "the scandal girl" (the concept itself is 100% sexist) , and then it is not good for politics? Uhm.... smells like double standard, right?

What about Madonna? Blowjobs. Fine. She offered herself for blowjobs (which is how a woman is supposed to career in the mind of some sexist men Madonna's fan, I suppose), going into details about how good she is: unfortunately, her self-endorsement seemed to me a bad "sissy hypno" video about how to do blowjobs, straight  from Xhamster. (Madonna, sorry, you may be good in doing porn movies on Xhamster, but you suck at Blowjobs for sure!).

But... how it comes that sexism is bad until Trump says he can take a woman from there (wherever is there) and is good when Madonna offers you ... "there", just if you vote for her?

Uhm... smells like a double standard.

4 - She is "the wife".

You can tell me how good she is in politics. You can mention amazing stories about how she did this and that , still she is there because she is the wife of Bill Clinton. You can say whatever you want , but:

  1. Zero charisma.
  2. No vertical issue (i.e: foreign policy, farming issues, and so)
  3. She is the wife.

This is the same error socialist women are doing in Europe, and this is why most of women in power here are (or were)  from conservative parties: Markel, Thatcher.... just because the socialist leaders, when women, are "the wife" or "the ex wife" of somebody else. See  Ségolène Royal for an example. And they never win.

You need a woman which was never the wife of anybody , if you want a president. End of story. Anyone knows the name of the husband of Kanzlerin Merkel? You needed to google, right? Good: this is the way. End of story.

If you don't do that, "she is the wife". The wife. Not there because she deserves it. Not an example for girls. Not an example for emancipated women. Which message she should carry? "Be the wife of someone important, and then try running in  your own shoes?"

Uhm... sounds like "she is the wife".

5 - You cannot prevent an argument to be part of the public debate after Internet.

In the past, when some argument was "outcasted", no TV and no Newspaper was reporting it. It was just a matter of a trust of parties saying "we do not discuss walls with mexico", and no part of the public debate was hosting this argument for a debate. So, a few lobbies were able to decide what to debate. In the public debate.

So this was racist, this was politically uncorrect, and lalalala. So no space.

But now we have internet. And if there is an argument you MUST debate it. In the public debate. Just forbidding newspapers and media to mention this argument, is not enough to stop it. Making the media saying "just a few imbeciles are into that", in the past was making people to feel alone and miserable. Now, they went on 4chan, 8chan, 420chan, reddit, and they realized they were not alone. So the argument was not stopped.

They assumed to be able to stop an argument just banning out of media, and they were server: in the era of internet, any argument MUST enter the public debate. And you must have better arguments to argue with.

You can scream and yell as much you like, in the era of Internet you cannot make an argument to disappear. You may ask Twitter and Facebook to remove it, Reddit CEO to edit user's posts (OMG!) and still the argument won't disappear from the public debate. It will just move to some /pol/ equivalent.

This is the Internet, darling. This is 2016.

There are many to mention: Michael Moore and Lena Dunham saying the white man to be extinct with Clinton (without mentioning how to do it: Concentration camps? Mass killing? Deportation? ) , people being very average in facts, but feeling superior with no reason, like supporting Clinton was a cheap certificate of being clever,  this stupid issue of "fake news", like before the press had always said the truth, and other.

But, all of those mistakes are very peculiar of the radical-chic, the snobs, the extreme left which , when enters the stage, will prevent your leftist party to win, even if you put Jesus in person as a leader.

And now, the trick: it was invented by a Guy named "Silvio Berlusconi": you just say something sexist, racist or gross. Then those people are entering the stage, yelling. And then the leftist party cannot win.

Trump had won in the very moment he was able to trigger that radical-idiots to enter the stage. He triggered them saying racist,sexist and homophobic stuffs.  Then they awake: islamolesbian negrocommunist veganofeminist reacted and entered the stage, and Clinton was fucked up.

Easy for Trump. Very easy.