Deace: How to Identify A Political Slappy
Slappy (adjective) … Alleged adult who has lost all perspective of absolute right and wrong, not to mention basic common sense, while caught up in the throes of unbridled devotion to a fellow human, or a man-made cause, pursuit, institution, ideology, association, etc. Synonyms include groupie, idolater, cultist, fanatic, brainwashed, hanger-on, and jock sniffer.
There are two simple ways to identify the political slappy in this 2016 presidential election:
First, the political slappy latch on to easily refuted issues/objections, regardless of any factual evidence presented to the contrary. Second, the political slappy rely on child-like arguments to justify why the candidate they’re a slappy for can still win; despite the fact said candidate is at 3% or lower in the polls — and with no money — just days before the vote.
Oh, and when I say “child-like,” rest assured I mean paste-eating, booger-picking child-like. Like the second grade. Like “I know you are but what am I” child-like. Like “whoever smelt it dealt it” child-like. Like “your mama so hairy it looks like she got Buckwheat in a headlock” child-like. Come to think of it, I’m now 42-years old and still find that Buckwheat mama joke funny, but I digress.
Once someone becomes a slappy, the stupid really comes out. Here are six actual examples of slappies gone wild that clear-eyed patriots are currently being subjected to:
1. “I’m a conservative who believes in the Constitution, and even though he’s solid, Ted Cruz isn’t eligible to run for president because he’s not a natural born citizen. Therefore, I’m supporting Donald Trump instead.”
If you’re so inspired to defend the integrity of the Constitution, how in the Sam Hill is a lifelong progressive like Trump, whose also flip-flopped on virtually every issue of conservative consequence in this campaign, your alternative? How has Mr. Eminent Domain abuse and the guy who told Kim Davis the First Amendment is now toast so go to jail, become the symbol of original intent?
By the way, unless you believe Millard Fillmore is actually the first president of these United States, Cruz is a natural-born citizen. This article is a pretty good explanation, though I doubt the slappy will read it. The slappy will just blink to reset the conditioning, and then repeat the mantra.
2. “Ted Cruz’s wife worked at Goldman Sachs. So he’s a tool of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the banking conglomerate globalist conspiracy to usher in one-world government. That’s why I’m voting for Rand Paul.”
The first time I ever heard the name “Ted Cruz” was July 26th, 2011. For it was on that day that Cruz’s then-fledgling U.S. Senate campaign versus the GOP establishment received a much-needed shot in the arm by way of a major endorsement.
That endorsement came from … wait for it … wait for it … you guessed it — Rand Paul.
Rand said at the time, “Ted will stand for liberty, and I’m proud to stand with Ted.”
So if everything the slappy is saying about Cruz being a portent of the Nicolae Carpathia to come is true, then the blame should rest on his false prophet Rand Paul. He was instrumental in helping Cruz, the supposed globalist Trojan horse, get elected to the U.S. Senate. Doing so elevated Cruz into a viable national political figure. So either Rand Paul is in on the conspiracy himself, or a complete patsy who doesn’t have the discernment necessary to run the free world.
You make the call, slappy.
3. “Ted Cruz has only raised all that money because of his close ties to corporate America.”
Cruz has actually received 670,000 donations from more than 320,000 donors, with the average donation only being $67. Meanwhile, the biggest benefactors to Cruz’s Super Pac fundraising are not lobbyists and cronyists (that would be Hillary Clinton), but rather the Wilks family from Texas. The Wilks, of course, are among the wealthiest and most generous devout Christian families in the country.
Nice try, though, slappy. If your candidate can’t raise the resources it takes to compete, he’s got no one to blame but himself.
4. “My candidate with almost no money and no support is still going to win because, God.”
You’re right, slappy, God often rewards slothful and unshrewd productivity with the talents He hands out. At least that’s how I read Jesus “parable of the talents”.
“For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Yeah, on second thought, not so much.
A salesman who doesn’t work his client list for sales isn’t generating revenue regardless of how many Sundays in a row he goes to church. But he probably is getting fired. It’s exactly why a radio host such as me would be fired if I couldn’t generate ratings and revenue, regardless of how many Bible verses I memorized.
I’m sorry that Mike Huckabee couldn’t parlay five years of almost daily branding on almighty Fox News into a viable campaign. But that’s on him. Just as it’s nobody’s fault other than Rick Santorum’s that the former Pennsylvania Senator went from nearly being the nominee in 2012 to self-parodying also-ran in 2016.
5. “I don’t want to vote for who the pundits say is going to win, but I’m going to vote for someone with real experience instead like Huckabee.”
The problem here is that Huckabee hasn’t governed anything in like a decade. Which, of course, just so happens to be before ISIS, Obamacare, unfettered Muslim immigration, Obama’s imperial presidency, a nuclear Iran, and pretty much every other issue being debated at the moment. Ironically enough, slappy, Huckabee has spent more time as a pundit himself than governing anything the past decade.
Here’s your sign.
6. “If we had a President Santorum or a President Huckabee right now, we wouldn’t have gay marriage because they don’t take the Tenth Amendment position Ted Cruz does.”
You know, that Constitution is a sticky wicket. It doesn’t have a “good intentions” clause for conservatives anymore than it does for Leftists.
There’s nothing, short of ordering the National Guard to arrest and detain state and local officials who give marriage licenses to homosexuals, that any president can do to stop the Supreme Court’s unlawful and immoral edict in Obergefell from being carried out. That’s because marriage jurisdictionally is regulated by the states. Nobody has ever received a federal marriage license, so there’s absolutely nothing a president can do to interpose here.
A president can’t impeach the Leftist SCOTUS justices because Congress does that. In fact, other than appointing justices, pretty much all the checks-and-balances on the judiciary branch belong to the legislative branch. Even a constitutional amendment must be ratified by Congress and then the states. A new Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited judicial review is a remedy, but Congress would have to pass that first to put it on a president’s desk.
Since states have always primarily regulated and defined marriage, the states are who have the primary responsibility and obligation to challenge Obergefell. True, when confronted with a so-called states’ rights argument for slavery, Abraham Lincoln famously said “no government has the right to do that which God says is wrong.” He even invaded the South to prove his point.
But I haven’t heard Huckabee, Santorum, or anyone else claiming some kind of presidential panacea calling for another Civil War. Have you, slappy?
This concludes my attempt to slap some sense into the slappy. You may now resume your regularly-scheduled group-think.
First published at Conservative Review
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.