Trump Wins “Referendum”

An important U.S. House election took place in Georgia’s sixth congressional district last night. The liberal media kept referring to it as a “referendum” on Trump’s presidency, and sure enough, Trump passed.

Fox News:

Republican Karen Handel on Tuesday night defeated rival Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s record-spending, special-election congressional race, keeping yet another House seat in GOP hands and denying Democrats a chance to deliver a rebuke to President Trump.

With all precincts reporting, Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state, led Ossoff 52 percent to 48 percent — a margin of nearly 11,000 votes out of more than 250,000 ballots cast.

The race smashed fundraising records for a House contest — with both campaigns and outside groups combining to spend a record $50 million.

Ossoff’s defeat was another setback for Democrats hoping to capitalize on Trump’s low approval ratings to win a long-standing Republican seat.

It was the party’s fourth straight defeat this year in attempts to win a Republican seat and take the momentum into the 2018 midterms. They now must win 24 GOP House seats to retake control of the chamber next year.

Whenever the media thinks they have Trump in a corner, he manages to escape every time. He may not win every battle, but he won this one handily.

Two observations: 1) The polls heading into the election were wrong once again and 2) Ossoff spent $30 million and still lost. How many times have we seen this pattern of the Democratic candidate polling too high and the biggest spender ending up losing?

Meanwhile, Democrats are scrambling to figure out why they keep losing over and over again. The theories are numerous: focusing too much on the Russian investigation, being too reactive to Trump, not having a clear vision, losing touch with the average American, etc.

2018 is going to be an interesting election year.

Replying to Each of Trump’s Tweets is the New Form of Anti-Trump Activism

Last night I stumbled across this month-old Washington Post article on a select group of tweeters who snarkily tweet back at nearly every single one of President Trump’s tweets. Excerpt:

It was a few minutes before 11 p.m. in Washington last Tuesday, and President Trump had a thought to share.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!” he tweeted to his 28 million followers.

A determined few of them — the regulars — were waiting.

“He’s investigating you right now,” Jordan Uhl, a young executive at a start-up in the District, tweeted back to the president. “Do you realize that?”

“Says a lot that the sitting president is STILL crying about an election THAT HE WON,” freelance writer Mike P. Williams typed from London. “There’s something wrong with you; your skin’s so thin.”

And in Los Angeles, tech entrepreneur William LeGate scoffed: “Comey is the reason you got elected . . . even you & your supporters know that.”

Most Twitter users, though, don’t bother to click on Trump’s individual tweets to see the thousands of replies each receives. If they did, they’d discover a little-known community: LeGate, Williams, Uhl and scores of other recurring names — the folks who’ve made a devout habit of talking back to the commander in chief on Twitter.

“I have a notification set up so that when Trump tweets, the lights on my phone flicker,” Le­Gate says. “I try to respond right away.”

Trump practically lives in these people’s pockets! It gets worse though:

“I was waking up at 4 a.m. to catch his early morning rants,” says Kristina Wong, a comedian and performance artist in Los Angeles. “The mania of trying to keep up with this s— is insane, but it was the only thing that gave me a sense of agency.”

Wong sighs. She knows how futile this sounds.

If the only thing giving you a “sense of agency” is tweeting gibes at the President of the United States, what are you doing with your life? What’s more, Wong seems fully aware of how silly (and pathetic) it is to rise well before the sun so she can work herself up over what someone else is thinking and saying.

I think it’s kind of cute that these people devote so much of their waking thoughts to someone whom they supposedly can’t stand. I’m paraphrasing some blogger here—can’t recall who—but it reminds me of the little girl in elementary school who never passed up an opportunity to name-call and make fun of the boy she secretly had a crush on.

And as I read in SJWAL, people typically project their own shortcomings and insecurities on the person they’re insulting. For example, you can bet that a liberal whose favorite insult of President Trump is that he’s a “man child who throws temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way,” is himself someone who has thin skin and temper control problems.

I get that these people believe they’re doing something absolutely necessary for the good of the nation or whatever. I just find it foolish to seek attention and validation through social media, especially when much of what you post reacts to someone else’s ideas and opinions.

Trump vs. Khan Again

After Trump criticized Sadiq Khan for his “no reason to be alarmed” statement, Khan is now calling on the British government to disinvite him, the President of the United States, from his upcoming state visit.

The Guardian:

Appearing on Channel 4 News on Monday evening, Khan said Trump was wrong about “many things” and that his state visit should not go ahead.

“I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for,” he said.

“When you have a special relationship it is no different from when you have got a close mate. You stand with them in times of adversity but you call them out when they are wrong. There are many things about which Donald Trump is wrong.”

The tables have turned: Instead of Trump trying to “ban Muslims,” a Muslim is trying to “ban Trump.” You can’t script this stuff.

Trump vs. Khan

Here is London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s statement on the recent Islamic terror attacks:

Just like terrorists are constantly evolving and finding new ways to disrupt us, harm us, attack us, the police and experts and all of us are finding new ways to keep us safe. Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed.

President Trump took major issue with the final sentence of Khan’s statement:

“No reason to be alarmed”? Mr. Khan, tell that to the families of the victims who thought they had no reason to be alarmed after the Manchester terror attack. They probably couldn’t have fathomed their loved ones ever getting stabbed or run over on London Bridge.

Our society’s response to yet another terrifying attack is more of the same. More virtue signalling, more Facebook profile picture changes, etc. Sad but predictable. No wonder some are starting to doubt that Europe will ever wake up.

What a Covfefe Is

A few minutes past midnight last night (or technically this morning) President Trump tweeted, “Despite the constant negative press covfefe.”

So it seems like he not only meant to type “coverage,” but also complete his thought. Scott Adams hypothesized that Trump was composing the tweet, got interrupted, and accidentally pocket-tweeted. Seems plausible. If you’ve ever put your phone in your pocket without turning its screen off, you know that some weird stuff can happen.

The thing is, Trump did not delete the tweet until several hours later. I can’t tell you whether that was intentional or not. Regardless, it made the mistake that much funnier.

Trump’s reaction to his gaffe was excellent, too:

This confirms that nobody can possibly laugh at him because he’s already laughing along with us. It’s all in good fun.

As for the true meaning of “covfefe,” here are some tongue-in-cheek theories. And here are two definitions:

Could “covfefe” end up in Merriam-Webster some day? Let’s make it happen!