Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to #First100Days!

The #First100Days series will bear witness to the next 13 weeks of the Trump administration and the climate in America and then respond openly in writing, dialogue, and debate in the hopes of fostering better communication among writers and partisans alike (although the essays and pieces do not have to be political in nature). Were looking to help give voice to honest and thematic essays from all layers of the political spectrum and across all GMP sections.

All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily of Good Men Media, The Good Men Project, or our editors.

Snowflake.

Libtard.

Trump that Bitch.

Coastal elites.

In the months since the election weve read and researched all of the polling data, articles, and profiles of the election and talked with scores of conservative voters regarding why they wanted Trump.

But liberals and moderates havebeen hard pressed to get the same in return.

Why is that?

Where is the Understanding the Hillary Voter or How can Liberals think that way expose and articles?

Instead its been the oppositeliberals reaching out to understand the electoral college and why Americansespecially low-educated white menchose what liberals feel is the worst President ever.

So whats going on?

Is this the case of the nerds wondering why the bully is the bully (and the bully not caring) or a case of the bully getting beat and the nerds not caring to understand why the bully feels shame and embarrassment?

Or is it something completely different, like the brains, lifestyle, and hard-held beliefs of voters?

Let us in on your truthwrite for us.

See original here:
Why Don't Men Care Enough to 'Figure Out' the Liberals? (#First100Days) - The Good Men Project

THE fragile alliance between Colin Barnett and Brendon Grylls was at breaking point last night after it emerged the Liberals had put a preference deal to One Nation which potentially delivered Pauline Hanson the balance of power in the WA Parliament.

Details of the controversial deal were confirmed by senior Liberals yesterday, with Nationals claiming privately they had been double crossed.

Under the plan, the Liberals would preference One Nation above the Nationals in the Upper House country regions, and in return, they are demanding One Nation would preference the Liberals above Labor in all Lower House seats they were contesting.

The Liberals will preference the Nationals first in every Lower House seat they are running, but have promised One Nation they will not be placed last on their ballot papers.

A Liberal source said the party had learnt a lesson from the 2001 election, when then Liberal leader Richard Courts administration put One Nation last on its ballot papers.

Pauline Hanson retaliated in that election by preferencing against Liberal incumbents a move which cost the Liberals government. Nationals leader Brendon Grylls yesterday refused to comment.

But National sources told The Sunday Times yesterday that some MPs were so incensed by the Liberals preference deal that they believed the alliance should be broken.

Nationals sources said the preference deal could result in them losing one or two of their current five seats in the Legislative Council, potentially delivering Pauline Hanson the balance of power in the six-region Upper House.

But Liberals were unsympathetic to the plight of their Government partners.

Liberals remembered with clarity how Mr Grylls demanded that $1 billion-a-year be spent in the bush as part of his demands to form an alliance with the Liberals in 2008.

And they were still fuming that Mr Grylls had at one stage also sought to form Government with Labor in 2008 something seasoned Liberals have never forgiven him for.

Liberals also pointed out that in the 2008 election the Nationals in all country Upper House regions had preferenced the Christian Democrats, Family First and One Nation ahead of the Liberals and that in 2013 both the Nationals and Liberals preferenced the Christian Democrats, Family First and Shooters and Fishers ahead of each other.

Liberals told The Sunday Times the preference deal was designed to stem the bleeding in Lower House seats, which would determine whether Mr Barnett retained government.

Current polling shows the Liberals could lose 14 Lower House seats on March 11 enough to hand Labor leader Mark McGowan victory.

This is a ballsy move by the Liberal Party after four years of being held captive by the WA Nationals, a senior Liberal source said.

This is an important first step in ensuring the Nationals are no longer relevant at a State or Federal level.

And in another slap in the face for the Nationals, a senior Liberal source said one idea which could be seriously looked at was commissioning Liberal operatives to hand out how-to-vote-cards to voters on behalf of One Nation.

You have to have the manpower to distribute how to vote cards on election days and during pre-polls, a source said.

If this is to be a winning strategy we will have to man up and get people on polling booths and in the pre-poll, which is during the two weeks running into the election.

If the Liberal Party gets really desperate, it will ask its polling booth people to hand out One Nation how-to-vote cards.

Preferences are expected to play a major role in this knife-edge election.

As revealed by The Sunday Times last month, Ms Hanson had been courted by senior Liberals for months, with WA Liberal senator Michaelia Cash and her husband even taking Ms Hanson and her chief-of-staff to dinner when she arrived in Perth in December, later driving her to the airport.

While Labor was adamant it would not do a preference deal with Ms Hanson, Liberal State director Andrew Cox and State president Norman Moore had met with her on several occasions to hatch a deal.

So important are preferences this election, that Preference Whisperer Glen Druery flew to Perth this week to speak to a swarm of independents and micro parties who are keen for success.

Mr Druery yesterday warned a Liberal move to preference One Nation might actually backfire by alienating their voters.

Polling that I have seen suggests that 20-30 per cent of Liberal (voters) will desert the party if they deal with One Nation, Mr Druery said.

A desperate and wounded animal is often a dangerous one and is often dangerous to itself.

I think any preference deal that the Liberals, or any of the major parties do with One Nation, will be very dangerous for the party which perpetrates the deal.

Mr Barnett, who in February warned voters against voting One Nation, yesterday declined to comment.

But an unrepentant Andrew Cox told The Sunday Times the Liberal Party will leave no stone unturned to ensure Colin Barnett and the Liberals are returned.

Original post:
WA Election 2017: WA Liberals do preference deal with One Nation - Perth Now

During the fall campaign, supporters of Hillary Clinton charged that there would be violence in the streets after the election. They were right, but it's not the violence they had in mind. They thought that angry Donald Trump supporters would riot, assault people they thought were Clinton supporters or Muslims or immigrants. But we haven't seen much of that, and not just because Trump won the election; it turns out that several highly publicized reports of post-election attacks on Muslims by apparent Trump supporters were hoaxes, without a grain of truth (including this one).

But there's been plenty of violence coming from the anti-Trump left side of the political spectrum. The most shocking violence came on Feb. 1 at and near the campus oft the University of California at Berkeley, where 150 masked demonstrators destroyed an estimated $100,000 of property, assaulted individuals and caused the cancellation of a speech by the gay conservative provocateur and Breitbart writer Milo Yiannapoulous while the Berkeley police cowered inside a building, a procedure the University of California Police Department director lamely defended. She noted that complaints came from outside the East Bay area, but that the locals an overwhelmingly left-wing constituency seemed content with the police non-performance.

What the police failed to confront was an organized riot involving an estimated 150 or more black-masked people armed with bricks, sledgehammers, smoke bombs, fireworks and pepper spray. The rioters did additional damage to private property adjacent to the campus; those sledgehammers come in handy if you are out to smash ATM machines. Alleged organizers, including a Berkeley law school graduate, expressed satisfaction with the results, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "We are happy with the results. We were able to meet Mr. Yiannapoulos' fascist message with massive resistance." In other words, freedom of speech is not to be allowed; violence to shut down free speech is to be applauded.

One organization claiming credit for the violence is called By Any Means Necessary; one spokesman, Berkeley middle school teacher Yvette Felarca, called the riot "a stunning achievement." As she told KTVU, "I was there, and there were thousands of people out there who were united. It was a mass protest, it was a militant protest, and everyone was there to shut him down. And so whatever it was going to take to do that, we were all there with a united cause, and we were stunningly successful."

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

As Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, suggests, this organized violence violates federal civil rights statutes, which authorize suits for money damages from conspirators to deprive others of their civil rights. And don't think it was only property that suffered. Here's an account from the indefatigable John Leo of how a woman and her husband with tickets to the Yiannapoulos event were beaten up by black-masked thugs.

Riot leaders like those quoted above justify their violence as a response to fascism. But if there is anything that looks like fascism in America today, it's what happened on the campus and in the streets of Berkeley, right down to the dark uniforms of the thugs.

The response of liberal politicians? So far as I know, there has been almost none. At the Powerline blog John Hinderaker links to a Grabien video showing Democratic politicians and celebrities making statements that some may take as endorsements of violence, such as Sen. Tim Kaine's urging followers to "fight in the streets." I suspect he would claim that he was speaking metaphorically and only urging peaceful protest. But it would be nice if he could find time to condemn the violence we have seen at Berkeley and which is increasingly unsurprising on our college and university campuses, which have become the part of our society most hostile to free speech.

Perhaps I have missed some statements by liberal politicians or entertainers denouncing Berkeley-style violence; I would be grateful to readers who could pass along any examples. But I fear they will be hard to come by.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"The Republican Party's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act is in chaos," they wrote.

02/11/17 10:28 AM

Top Story

The executive order gives departments 90 days to review screening measures.

02/11/17 12:33 AM

Read more:
Do liberals care about fascist-style violence in Berkeley ... - Washington Examiner

Posted February 11, 2017 17:25:02

The WA Greens say polling shows 33 per cent of Liberal voters will not support the party if it does a preferences deal with One Nation.

The results of the Essential poll of 2,000 people have been revealed as the Liberal Party State Executive considers the issue.

Upper House candidate for North Metropolitan region Alison Xamon said the Greens were putting One Nation last, and so should the Liberals.

"One Nation has no place in this Parliament and the last thing they need is any leg-ups from the Liberal Party," she said.

"They need to be completely rethinking how they're approaching their dealings with One Nation we're not doing any deals with One Nation, and in fact we are putting One Nation last and recommending our voters put One Nation last."

Ms Xamon rejected suggestions Pauline Hanson's party had changed.

"One Nation is as racist as they always were," she said.

"They've always attacked the first Australians, Aboriginal Australians, they've attacked people who have come here from Asia, they're attacking the Jewish community, and now they're attacking people from Islamic backgrounds," she said.

"It's not acceptable, we are a multicultural country, this is something which should be celebrated and cohesion needs to be protected and One Nation has no place here.

"I'll be very, very clear Pauline Hanson does not speak for me."

The Greens used their state election campaign launch to announce their policy on donations reform, claiming wealthy interest groups and vested interests were undermining the political system.

Ms Xamon said the Greens wanted to limit lobbyists' powers and the influence of developers.

"We need to have dramatic reform of our donations laws and that's something that the Greens are going very hard on," she said.

"We want to have a banning of donations particularly from for-profit corporations, mining companies, polluters because we think that that's twisting the policies of government."

Ms Xamon said the Greens would continue to seek reform in other key areas.

"Making sure that we have sustainable cities, looking at renewable energy targets, sustainability around water and housing and transport are really critically important," she said.

"But also making sure that we've got different approaches to law and order, and ensuring that we've got appropriate services for people who are in need, particularly people with mental illness, people with disability, tackling racism.

"We need to really rethink the way we're approaching jobs and training and worker safety."

The Greens currently only have two members in the Legislative Council, and none in the Legislative Assembly.

The party suffered a swing against it in the 2013 election.

Ms Xamon said she was confident the party would improve its position.

"Every single party has its ebbs and flows, and there's no doubt at all certainly since 2013, the Greens vote has continued to climb back up again, we're expecting we're going to have pretty good representation in the West Australian Parliament," she said.

Topics: greens, one-nation, polls, government-and-politics, elections, liberals, wa

View original post here:
WA election: Greens say One Nation preference deal will lose Liberals votes - ABC Online

February 10, 2017 NEW YORKWhen Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch chose the words disheartening and demoralizing to describe attacks on the integrity of the federal judiciary this week, many took them to be a cautious but not-so-subtle message to Senate Democrats.

Navigating the noreasters of Washingtons confirmation process means winning over at least eight Democrats. And with those two words, Judge Gorsuch appeared to be distancing himself from President Trump, carefully asserting his own independence and demonstrating a willingness to stand up to the man who nominated him.

Yet even before the saga over the meaning and original intent of the nominees words began to unfold on Thursday with President Trump arguing that the media was misinterpreting his words many liberals were already making this case for the deeply conservative jurist, calling Mr. Trumps nominee one of the most independent-minded judges in the country.

It is a difficult pivot for many Democrats to make. Republican senators refusal even to schedule a hearing for President Obamas nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, last year still rankles. But some are wondering how far to take the fight when Gorsuch, in some ways, presents a relatively attractive conservative option.

Of all the judges President Trump could have nominated, Gorsuch seems to me as good as anybody, liberal or conservative, who would stand up to unlawful actions by the Trump administration, if need be, says Daniel Epps, a professor at Washington University Law School in St. Louis, who puts himself on the liberal side of jurisprudence.

Hes someone who seems to believe in a fairly robust role for the judicial branch in checking the legality of the actions of the other branches, adds Professor Epps, who, like Gorsuch, once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. So theres reason for optimism, I think, in that hes not going to just be a reflexive vote for conservative opinions in every case.

Like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he will take if confirmed, Gorsuch has often ruled in favor of criminal defendants over the government rulings not uncommon for strict textualists and their razor-close readings of the statutory texts.

And unlike many other federal judges, Gorsuch has been a fierce critic of the so-called Chevron doctrine, which holds that judges should generally defer to the executive branch and its agencies when they have any reasonable interpretation of federal statutes.

That basically gives people comfort that didn't have comfort, said Sen. Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat from West Virginia after meeting Gorsuch. That has helped him in his quest for confirmation, he said.

Yet Gorsuch has come to Washington at a rancorous political moment and will face vehement Democratic opposition.

Certainly, the base of the Democratic party is saying, You absolutely must stand strong against Trumps nominees, even if you dont have the numbers, says F. Michael Higginbotham, the Joseph Curtis Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. What kind of message does it send to the Republicans, and to the country, if there are then no political consequences, if you believe what the Republicans did to Judge Garland was wrong? And youre not willing to stand up to that?

Indeed, many Democratic senators believe the Supreme Court seat was stolen last year, when Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Judge Garland for 293 days.

Theres no doubt that Judge Gorsuch is well qualified and a person of integrity, says David Cohen, a professor at Drexel Universitys Thomas R. Kline School of Law in Philadelphia. But my own personal view is that liberal Democrats who think thats good enough for him to get a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court are basically rolling over and playing dead in a game in which Republicans are playing in a very dirty way.

Or, as Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Slate put it recently, it would be like holding out a cupcake at a knife fight.

For them, the perfect scenario would be Democrats blocking Gorsuchs nomination, forcing Trump to come back with a more moderate nominee like Garland.

Its an unlikely gamble, and one with profound risks, however, many experts say.

Republicans could nix the cloture rule, the basis for the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold to hold a vote, allowing Gorsuch to join the high court with only 50 votes. That could fundamentally undermine the Senates larger role as a body that demands bipartisan compromise.

Moreover, looking ahead to possible Supreme Court retirements, Trump could easily appoint much more hardline conservative, leaving the Supreme Court with a five- to six-seat majority that could last a generation. That is a more important battle, some say.

This is part of the strategic calculus that makes me think this is such hard question, says Epps at Washington University. On the one hand, Senate Democrats can say, What McConnell did with Garland was just ridiculous. But youve got to be thinking ahead to the next battle. And, yeah, in a world in which the filibuster has been nuked, then maybe it will be a lot easier for Republicans to fill any vacancy with whoever they want.

Gorsuch is facing a perilous moment in his confirmation. Trump this week lashed out against the judicial branch, demeaning the district court judge who first blocked his travel ban, calling him a so-called judge and his opinion ridiculous.

Then the president lashed out against the Ninth Circuit court panel hearing his emergency appeal, calling its proceedings disgraceful even before it ruled 3-to-0 on Thursday to continue to block his order.

The White House insisted on Thursday that Gorsuchs words, disheartening and demoralizing, were not referring to the presidents outburst, even though at least two senators and a White House official said they were.

One of the senators, Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse, even said the nominee got pretty passionate about Trumps attack of the judiciary.

"People all across the political spectrum should love the fact that he's going to be a warrior for a constitutional system of executive restraint and limits," Senator Sasse said.

Read the rest here:
'Disheartening'? Some liberals warm up to Trump Supreme Court pick. - Christian Science Monitor