A Tribute to Leftist Tolerance in the 2016 Election
In this final installment of tributes to the 2016 election, we take a look at tolerance, you know something that liberals always preach, but seldom practice. Especially is the case when it is inconvenient to the narrative or socialist agenda.
But before getting too ahead of myself, I want to recognize a few personal accomplishments that were achieved during this election. I am purely ecstatic by the fact that a social studies teacher, who is a friend of mine, and I were able to not only successfully predict the outcome of this election and Brexit, but the majority of events as they transpire, with far greater accuracy than the “professional” commentators and “journalists.”
From what candidate would drop out next, Brexit, Bernie having the rug ripped out from under him, and even down to Pennsylvania being the state to determine it all, we were on fire (not gloating... but it's hard when you give the established powers that be a run for their money. Also, it tends to irritate tantruming leftists).
But successful predictions and tacking aside, I have gathered my three personal favorite quotes demonstrating the intolerant left, complete with commentary from yours truly. Please note, any provided excerpt is in its original, and often raw, unaltered form (not a reflection of my spelling or grimmer skills).
As with my other tributes (Liberal Arrogance & Self-Righteous RINOs) they are all anonymous, as to not upset or embarrass any that are already "suffering" with the reality of Trump's upcoming inauguration. With that said, let's take a look at the intolerance from the "ideology of tolerance":
"Hillary is for us little folk and that should carry her to president and most wives will make husband vote for her… Conservatives are selfish and want corporations to have power.”
First of all, what?! Given all the leaks and everything else we know about the Clintons, how can anyone actually believe that Hillary has ever been for the "little folk?" Mrs. Clinton has done little during her tenure as Secretary of State or the 30 years spent in public office to provide a contrasting perspective (unless engaging in some serious sugarcoating), through a career of self-enrichment and corruption.
Saying she is for the little person is on par with saying Fidel Castro was a true humanitarian (oh wait, the left did that too...). Not only did I call out this little progressive talking point, which clearly failed to gain any traction among Clinton's plethora of scandals, but was fully vindicated by the Rust Belt's working class (typically blue states) turning out for the Donald. This person could surely use some educating, and should probably start with . Clinton Cash
Secondly, what kind of person lets their spouse dictate who they’re voting for? Are we not a society of free thought, critical thinking, and individual success (although some of the questionable collective incoherence I've heard this election says otherwise...). Who let's their spouse tell them who to vote for? If that's not insulting enough for your intelligence, this individual also made the case for women to vote for Hillary because of their anatomy, so no surprise there. Note, this person also claims to be Republican (yeah, sure...).
"The racist retoric I am reading is alarming. 'Drain the swamp,' 'philly fraud we hear it loud and clear."
And no, I didn't misspell "retoric" (rhetoric) any more than I am responsible for the other heinous grammatical errors found here. This is pulled directly from their post, and hilarious enough, these errors and the straw-grasping statement itself were made by a teacher no less. Although "Philly fraud" is quite the stretch to arrive at an association with skin color (what can I say, it's pretty clear Democrats have to look at everything through a divisive lens, but I'm just not wired to think that way), "drain the swamp," racist?
So even from an incredibly limited liberal perspective on any view that opposes their own, or the notion that this was somehow just misquoted to meet their own political agenda, can anyone explain how either of those two statements are racist.
As I was the one they were quoting (and horribly construed at that) on, "Philly fraud," allow me to clear up any misconceptions. Anyone who is familiar with some of my other election pieces has probably already read that there were reports and documented evidence of fraud in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (my home state), not just this election, but also in 2012. Whether it was the ballot box pulled by the inspection commissioner that had votes already cast for Clinton prior to the station opening its doors, Black Panther intimidation, or last election's incredibly shameless display by Democrats where President Obama somehow miraculously received 110% voter turnout, I think it's safe to say there's absolutely nothing inherently racist with the term, "Philly fraud" (maybe I should just be more direct next time and say "Democrat fraud..." But that would probably be racially charged somehow too...").
"Drain the swamp..." Really? We are talking about corrupt elitists occupying Washington DC, who have made countless promises and failed to deliver. The "swamp" is occupied by both parties, made up of all races, sexes, religious beliefs, etc, and implying that such a phrase is somehow bigoted is a pathetic (and simplistic at that) attempt to play on peoples' emotions (this was made on election day after all). It fails all around and demonstrates this person's inability to make a coherent argument.
Pretty bad when even John Stewart knows what's up...
“Why anyone would even consider voting for this guy unless of course they embody his same values, and then well, enough said...”
Classic liberal race card tactic, as they lack facts or evidence to support their argument. Then when pushed, the back peddling began, followed by assertions that they were in no way implying that I in particular was a racist, but rather just, "a broader assessment of most Trump supporters" (hmmm... not quite sure what is worse, as grouping people together is in no way intolerant, right?).
Most astounding is that this person is a family member. Resorting to name calling, labeling, belittling, and arguing in the name of politics is an ineffective method of getting your point across, especially when attacking a relative because you disagree with their point of view. Also, this is yet another teacher that demonstrates a complete lack of critical thought and resorts to identity politics (shameful), as opposed to articulating valid points. You should have seen the poor excuse for defending and making a case for Hillary Clinton that followed (no wonder she lost...).