Ann Coulter Is Seriously Worried

Discussion in 'The Round Robin' started by il ragno, May 15, 2017.

  1. il ragno Proud American Deplorable

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,037
    Reputation:
    151,234,527
    Ratings Received:
    +8,645 / 29 / -85
    Ann Coulter Is Worried The ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’

    ALEX PFEIFFER
    10:27 PM 05/14/2017


    Conservative author Ann Coulter was one of the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign.

    She wrote “In Trump We Trust” and proclaimed that she worships him like the “people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader – blind loyalty.”

    Coulter described herself as a single-issue voter during the election and was drawn to Trump due to his “Mexican rapist speech” and him calling for a border wall to be built.

    In an interview Sunday with The Daily Caller, Coulter let it be known she still has hope in the Trump presidency, but is ready to jump ship.

    So there’s no wall, and Obama’s amnesties look like they are here to stay. Do you still trust Trump?

    Uhhhh. I’m not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.

    I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni’s op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?

    You said during the election and in columns that if there is no wall it’s the end of America.

    Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trumpism. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

    We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.

    What’s behind him driving towards New York?

    If he grabs the steering wheel and turns around and takes us toward LA, then I’ll just put it down to him not being a professional politician and having to come into the presidency with no support network, with all of official Washington against him.

    I have from the beginning been opposed to Trump hiring any of his relatives. Americans don’t like that, I don’t like that. That’s the one fascist thing he’s done. Hiring his kids.

    But I understand if you’re in Washington you don’t know who to trust, the party was against you, the politicians were against you, the bureaucracy was against you, and by the way this isn’t to say anything bad about Jared. Everything I know about him, I think he’s doing a great job. But even if he is absolutely the best person for the job, I don’t like the hiring of relatives.

    I could understand all that if he gets control of the steering wheel and turns around and starts going towards LA.

    If we just keep going to New York. Well again, I’ll say we had no choice, but the Trump-haters were right…It’s a nightmare. I can’t even contemplate that. Right now I’m still rooting for him to turn around and take us toward LA.

    Are you going to be apologizing to these Never Trumpers?

    I don’t apologize for supporting Trump. He said all the right things and nobody else would even say it. I suppose it’s possible that another politician who really meant it would come along. There’s Kris Kobach, Tom Cotton, Jeff Sessions…there are probably a handful of politicians.

    I got to tell you when I wrote “Adios America” I thought there was a 10 percent chance of saving the country. On the evening of November 8, I thought, “Wow we have a 90 percent chance now, this is a chance that comes along once every thousand years, we can save America now.”

    And now, I don’t know, I’m someplace between 10 percent and 90 percent.

    How much blame does congressional leadership deserve?

    I do, of course, blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity? People should start sending Paul Ryan bricks to indicate how much we want the wall.

    They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.

    During the campaign you said you would have to start writing mystery books if Hillary Clinton won. Are you preparing to start writing these?

    No. But I must say I’ve been contemplating it a bit more. You can’t give up yet. We have to keep Trump’s feet to the fire. It’s weird because I really think in his heart he’s a genuine patriot.

    It’s just that it has been such a disaster so far, and that General Kelly is so preposterous, and McMaster — did you see him at that press conference? I thought he was retarded. You have to link to that video.



    I’ve never actually heard anyone other than liberals mocking their idea of a stupid Republican say, “Murrica.”

    [Trump] might not have realized how intense the opposition was going to be. Not on everything. Nobody else would have done the trade deals, that is to save American jobs. But they are not going to complain and massively resist on trade. They are not going to massively resist him on things like tax cuts. They are going to love for him to go to war, we have to try to resist him on that.

    The one thing he will get massive resistance from every source in Washington including his “own party” is immigration.

    What does your friend Matt Drudge think of all of this? Recently on Michael Savage’s radio show he seemed nervous about the Trump administration.

    I’ll let him speak for himself, but I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified.

    This interview was edited and condensed for clarity.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Johnson: 202,487 Points May 15, 2017
    Blitzed: 33,634 Points (Yeah get that kike Kushner out of there. Itz poison.) May 15, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  2. il ragno Proud American Deplorable

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,037
    Reputation:
    151,234,527
    Ratings Received:
    +8,645 / 29 / -85
    And now for another perspective.

    John Derbyshire: Let’s Go To Peak Trump Hysteria—Ambassador Kislyak For FBI Chief!

    John Derbyshire
    May 13, 2017


    I don’t know whether Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached Peak Hysteria yet, but this week it definitely attained what we math geeks call a “local maximum.” That means, while it may not be the tallest peak in the mountain range, it’s taller than anything in its immediate vicinity.

    This is of course all about President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey. Prior to this week, the most famous episode in U.S. history concerning a President and his FBI Director was Lyndon Johnson’s apothegm about J. Edgar Hoover, slightly bowdlerized quote: “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in.”

    This week our President decided that FBI Director James Comey had been doing somewhat too much inward micturition and not enough of the outward kind, so he fired him.

    That is perfectly constitutional. Comey was head of a federal agency reporting to the Executive Branch; the President is chief of that branch; there is no impropriety or unconstitutionality.

    You’d never know that from the Establishment’s reaction. Politicians and pundits were weeping and rending their garments everywhere you looked. One major New York tabloid, the Daily News, ran a cover saying, in the largest type they could fit on the page, Coup de Trump.

    That’s a metropolitan subeditor’s notion of a clever play on words, in this case the words coup d’état, an overthrow of the state by force. Since d’état means “of the state” while de Trump means “of Trump,” the actual implication of the Daily News headline to an educated reader (assuming the Daily News has one) would be that Trump had been overthrown by force.

    That is not what happened, except in the fever dreams of our Trump-derangement-syndrome-affected elites. They couldn’t help but verbalize their wishful thinking, though. The coup motif was a common one, by no means restricted to the Daily News. “Donald Trump Is Attempting a Coup,” gasped Bill Moyers on his website. “A coup in real time?” asked Yale Professor of History Timothy Snyder rhetorically at the CultMarx website Salon.com. The firing of Comey was, said this Ivy League professor, quote: “an open admission of collusion with Russia.” [A coup in real time? by Chauncey DeVega, May 12, 2017]

    Atlantic editor David Frum called it “a coup against the FBI” on Twitter. That one left me really confused. What, the FBI should be running the country, but Trump’s overthrown them?

    As I said, probably not peak hysteria yet—that will have arrived when Yale professors and Atlantic editors run screaming naked through the streets while tearing their flesh with billhooks; but definitely a local maximum.

    Thoughtful commentary on the firing—I mean, the small percentage of commentary that contained something other than shrieking and sputtering—concentrated on Trump’s timing, wisdom, and motivation. Here’s my take on those three aspects, taking them in turn:

    I can’t summon up much interest in the timing.
    If it was a right thing to do, the timing of the doing is secondary. Sooner would have been better; but better late than never.

    The wisdom can reasonably be doubted.
    Back in March I noted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s purge of his secret police chief Kim Won-hong. I said how remarkable it was that the top cop was still alive, when senior officials who run afoul of Kim Jong-un are usually executed by some imaginatively gruesome method. How odd, I said, that the secret-police chief had merely been placed under house arrest. (He has since been sent to a camp for “re-education”.)

    But that’s the thing with relations between a national leader and his secret-police boss, as LBJ understood. The secret-police boss knows far more about what’s going on, at a much greater depth of detail, than the leader does. He doesn’t just know where the bodies are buried: he knows how deep they are buried, and what was buried with them, and what was done to them that made it necessary at last to bury them, and who did it.

    From the leader’s point of view, the secret-police chief is a cargo of dynamite, to be handled with extreme care.

    The money quote here is one I retailed back in January, from Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer is, as I noted at the time, a repulsive creep, but he nailed this one in a TV interview when asked about unkind things candidate Trump had said about the spooks:

    Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he [that is, Trump] is being really dumb to do this.

    Schumer predicted intelligence officials would ‘get back at’ Trump, By Carl Campanile, NY Post, January 11, 2017

    So on the wisdom point, I’m shaking my head. Donald Trump may, and I hope will, go down in history as a successful President, but I doubt he will be regarded as one of the wisest.

    What about motivation?
    I’m sticking with my LBJ analogy. Comey just wasn’t sufficiently on-side; or the President thought he wasn’t, which is functionally the same thing.

    Other opinions were on offer from the commentariat. Ann Coulter told her Twitter followers, perhaps not entirely seriously: “Comey firing is a red herring to distract from the fact that Trump hasn’t started building the wall.” Sorry, Ann, and I want that wall as much as you do, babe, or very nearly as much; but that’s a stretch. I’m sticking with LBJ.

    Out on the foam-flecked Left—which is to say, well-nigh all the Main Stream Media pundits and political Establishment—that Yale professor’s opinion was the default: Comey was getting too close to the truth about candidate Trump’s collaboration with the Russians to rig last November’s election.

    This business about the Russians is by now a psychiatric-level obsession with our elites, a King Charles’s head. That’s in spite of the fact that after months of furious digging there is not a shard or fragment of evidence for it, not a jot nor a tittle. And in spite of the further fact that it makes no strategic sense whatsoever from the Russians’ point of view—a Clinton presidency would have suited them better. And in spite of the yet further fact that, according to me, it wouldn’t have mattered a damn if there had been Russian attempts to interfere in our election. Mexico interferes in our elections all the time and no-one except VDARE.com’s Allan Wall ever complains.

    I suggested back in March that the President throw this Russia stuff right back in the elites’ smug weasel faces by making the Russian ambassador an honored guest at all cabinet meetings. In the same spirit of defiance, I now tender a further suggestion.

    Mr. President, you are in need of a new FBI Director. Please consider appointing Russian ambassador Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak to this position.

    Ambassador Kislyak is a genial and worldly fellow you should have no trouble getting along with. As a former diplomatic functionary of the U.S.S.R., I’m sure he is well acquainted with intelligence procedures and protocols. An ideal candidate!

    You’d probably have to grant him U.S. citizenship; but I believe that can be done on an expedited basis by a simple Act of Congress.

    The upside for you would be that it would drive the opposition into shrieking, moon-howling madness. The downside for our country would be … nothing at all.

    FOOTNOTE: Is that really a great idea? No, not really a great one. A pretty bad one, actually.

    On any reasonable scale of badness, though, its badness fades to insignificance, to nothing at all, by comparison with really really bad ideas: ideas like continuing mass Third World immigration, or restarting the Cold War with Russia.

    A nation can survive having a foreigner of doubtful loyalty in charge of one of its law-enforcement agencies, but it can’t survive having its population replaced by alien peoples.

    If that happens, the country is no longer what it was. It’s a different country.

    That’s the condition we’re in. Really really bad ideas, lethally bad ideas, existentially disastrous ideas, are respectable, in fact well-nigh compulsory. Ideas that are mildly silly but not permanently harmful are considered outrageous.

    That’s our condition.


    In other words: Comey firing is a red herring to distract from the fact that Trump hasn’t started building the wall. Got it!
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Man Against Time Black Hole Melchizedek

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    8,413
    Location:
    The wrong side of the tracks.
    Reputation:
    100,362,288
    Ratings Received:
    +9,001 / 126 / -271


    Wha ... ?

    Since when is hiring one's kids "fascist"? "Bonapartist," maybe, or perhaps even "neo-feudal," but "fascist"?

    It could also just be "American" with the love we've shown for dynasties and nepotism since the Adams clan on up.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    fuz al-nufi: 79,049 Points May 15, 2017
    Blitzed: 33,634 Points (Didn't get it either.) May 15, 2017
  4. Bluto Drunken lout

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    12,907
    Reputation:
    233,620,911
    Ratings Received:
    +17,040 / 66 / -168
    She prob'bly t'inkin' o' Mussolini's son-in-law, Count Ciano.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Blitzed: 33,634 Points May 15, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. Apocales 4:35a.m. just one more episode..

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    21,973
    Location:
    Your head - rent free.
    Reputation:
    107,438,397
    Ratings Received:
    +13,193 / 84 / -144
    Donald Trump Jr is the cool relative of his, the rest are shitlibs.
  6. Johnson HEIL HITLER.

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    10,700
    Location:
    Neuschwabenland
    Reputation:
    217,980,010
    Ratings Received:
    +14,733 / 204 / -317
    Every Time I Try to be Mad at Trump, the Media Pull Me Back

    Ann Coulter, American Renaissance, May 17, 2017

    Their bias knows no bounds.

    Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.

    The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.

    The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.

    The New York Times, March 22, 2017:

    Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears

    “Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers … two senior American counterterrorism officials said. …”

    This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.

    Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?

    Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.

    As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because 1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and 2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

    Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”

    To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.

    Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)

    At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”

    There’s a new legal principle!

    Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”

    As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!

    But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?

    For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?

    Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”

    Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.

    After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.

    Here’s what Trump actually said:

    “What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. …

    “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …”

    Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.

    In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:

    He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.

    To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:

    It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …

    One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:

    “I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.”

    He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.

    The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.

    COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
    DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
  7. fuz al-nufi Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,383
    Location:
    wonderland
    Reputation:
    98,820,527
    Ratings Received:
    +5,964 / 312 / -360
    ann coulter is a barren old literal witch.

Share This Page