MAGA Kicksave
Debate Autopsy - It Ain't All Bad
Long, exasperated sigh…
Probably the last thing I wanted to do this week was to recap that debacle of a debate.
It was painful enough to watch it the first time. To even consider doing a full recap is beyond the mental and physical capacity I have right now, especially since I’m fasting and striving to maintain my current sobriety.
On the bright side, my relationship seems to have survived debate night. That wasn’t guaranteed earlier in the week as I shouted at my TV throughout the entire travesty like I had just bet my mortgage on the Jets during Monday Night Football.
I’ll be the first to admit, I’m not Presidential material, but had I been on that stage I would have absolutely dissected the DEI Border Woman and her ABC lackeys.
Literally every question posed to Trump or response to Kamala I thought was a layup and fired off a stream of pinpointed (and obvious) answers that would have left her quivering followed by an equally animated stream of obscenities when Trump failed to capitalize on every single alley-oop dished to him.
Disbelief morphed into anger followed by depression as the night went on.
By 40 minutes in I was better off tapping out and selling BTC and S&P futures as it became apparent that Trump’s golden opportunity to put a final boot on The Pretender’s neck was gone.
While his closing statement was strong, I imagine most Americans didn’t make it to the 2nd hour and flipped the channel to something less painful like a live knee surgery on PBS.
Regardless, I’m not going to do a full recap. There’s plenty of that on the interwebs and I’ll include an article or two below in the What I’m Watching and Reading section that can give you some intelligent insight.
What I will do is try to synthesize some of the after affect and fallout from the event.
The good news is that Trump’s disastrous performance doesn’t seem to have hurt him in the polls. Yes, he missed the opportunity to expand his lead and bury the Empty Suit once and for all, but at least we didn’t see any profound swing in support towards KamaChameleon.
This makes intrinsic sense to me.
Kamala Harris "winning" a debate failing to boost her in the polls isn't particularly surprising, especially when we consider the historical context of both candidates.
In an electoral race featuring newcomers, a strong debate performance might significantly sway public opinion. However, both Harris and Trump come with substantial track records that voters can scrutinize.
Trump's presidency, despite fears and significant opposition, did not veer into dictatorship nor radical policies; during his tenure, the cost of living with regards to essentials like gas and groceries remained low, the economy boomed and global conflicts were nonexistent.
Contrastingly, the subsequent four years under the Biden administration, in which Harris has played a significant role, have been marred by spiking inflation, rising violent crime, and a world plunged into greater chaos and conflict.
The situation was exacerbated by an unprecedented influx of 15 million undocumented immigrants at the southern border. In this light, the debate's outcome likely failed to sway many voters because when words from a debate are stacked against the weight of experienced reality, actions speak far louder.
Voters have witnessed firsthand the impacts of both administrations, providing them with concrete evidence to influence their decisions far beyond rhetoric alone.
Having said that, there are still some percentage of fabled ‘undecided’ voters out there on the margins.
I'm not sure whether being undecided at this stage indicates a lack of information or intelligence, but regardless of whether these idiots voters comprise 6% or 20% of the electorate, debates like this are typically aimed at engaging them. These discussions are crucial in swaying those who have yet to make a decision, aiming to clarify positions and policies in a way that resonates with voters still on the fence.
Despite Trump delivering a notably lackluster performance, what stood out even more were the two key issues during the debate: the apparent bias of the moderators and the Streisand Effect concerning some of Trump's remarks (such as the ‘debunked’ claim about Haitians eating cats). This latter phenomenon appears to have unexpectedly worked against the Kamala campaign, drawing more attention to these statements and the overall immigration debate rather than diminishing their impact.
First off, the moderator bias was laughably grotesque.
The debate felt like a 3 against 1 pile-on, and it's likely that Kamala's team had access to the questions beforehand. However, Trump should have anticipated this situation and prepared accordingly.
During the debate, Kamala oscillated between making vague, unsubstantial declarations in response to specific questions (How would you fix the economy: “Well, I grew up middle class….”) and outright lies that the moderators seemed to let pass with no problem while ‘fact checking’ Trump multiple times.
Here are just a handful of Kamala’s biggest debate lies:
Trump is responsible for and will implement Project 2025 - Lie
Trump will pass a national abortion ban - Lie
“Very fine people” hoax - Lie
”Dictator Day One” - Lie
Blaming Trump for Afghanistan- Lie (don’t even need evidence for this one. If you’re stupid enough to watch what happened more than a year after Trump left office and believe somehow he had something to do with that catastrophe, good luck to you. I imagine you’ll need it to get through day to day life.)
Never said she will ban fracking - Lie
Claimed Police died on Jan 6th - Lie
Repeated “It will be a Bloodbath” hoax - Lie
Trump's stance on IVF - Lie
Won’t take guns - Lie
Trump weak on foreign policy - Ok lady. That’s why wars are breaking out all over under you and we had peace under Trump. 🤦🏻♂️
Harris claimed she was in the Capitol during the J6 riot - Lie
Trump inciting Jan 6. - Lie. Trump specifically told protestors to “peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard” and sought to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops. Pelosi said no.
Kamala claimed, “There are no US troops in active combat zones overseas” thanks to her Administration.
I don’t know how ABC let Kamala get away with that whopper during the debate.
U.S. sailors and Marines are fighting off Houthi attacks in Yemen.
Over 3,400 troops are engaged in Iraq and Syria.
We have forces in Western Africa battling terrorists.
Just this year, 3 U.S. soldiers were killed and 40 injured in Jordan by an Iranian-made drone.
Nearly 1,000 troops are still deployed in Syria, and 2,500 remain in Iraq under Operation Inherent Resolve.
And if you don’t think the US has special ‘advisers’ all over Ukraine, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you…
Once again, the internet wins the day on this baldfaced lie.
The press and the Harris campaign are aware that it's challenging for Trump to address each new fabrication. Running a campaign that consistently leverages such hoaxes is arguably one of the most disgraceful tactics in contemporary politics, yet it remains effective. In the absence of a press possessing even a trace of integrity, they are able to repeatedly propagate the "Very fine people" Charlottesville myth without facing any factual scrutiny.
For those of us that care about the truth, here’s an excellent site that offers a comprehensive debunking of most of the Democrat-pushed hoaxes.
Bookmark it and use it with you deranged crazy Aunt when she shows up with the typical leftist nonsense in the family chat or at Thanksgiving.
https://americandebunk.com/2024/06/29/the-fine-people-hoax/
It really makes me wonder what percentage of the left or center-left's stance and opposition to Trump boils down to a combination of low testosterone, an incredibly poor information environment (CNN/NYT/MSNBC etc), and a heavy emotion vs. logic based approach to decision making.
I rarely hear a coherent policy disagreement with regard to Trump. It almost always comes down to a regurgitation of various MSM hoaxes ('very fine people' / 'dictator day one') or character assassination without a definable example (he's racist!).
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of reasons not to like Trump (mostly around character and execution), but if there was even a remotely semi-objective and uncompromised press, this would likely be a Mondale-caliber landslide across the board.
Meanwhile, on the answers they did fact-check Trump on, it was clear that the moderators themselves were incorrect and guilty of spreading their trademark ‘fake news’.
Whether it was the “no states allow post-birth abortions”, “actually crime is down” or the infamous “no one is eating cats and dogs”, it was clear to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Google or current events that Trump was correct on most points they pushed back on. Here in NY which isn’t even one of the 8 states listed in the link above, a mother is permitted to abort her baby at any time in the pregnancy based on the health of the mother - and that ‘health’ includes physical or emotional distress. So if the mother to be simply doesn’t feel like she’s capable of caring for the child, she can abort that baby up and until the date of actual birth.
Of course most Americans aren’t well informed enough to realize these things in real time, so the moderators were semi-successful in preying on their ignorance and stamping a very pro-Kamala, anti-Trump agenda on the debate.
Perhaps the most interesting moderator lie and fallout of all was related to the Springfield, Ohio Haitian resettlement and Trump’s claims that they are ‘eating the cats and dogs’.
One point I’ll make before heading down this rabbit hole, is that even if they are not eating the geese from the parks and people’s pets, settling 20,000 Haitians in a small town is a wanton act of destruction and subjugation by a hostile government.
Not a single person in Springfield asked for their town to be fundamentally altered overnight (except for the Mayor, landlords and other corporations who get are getting rich off the cheap foreign labor and tenants courtesy of government handouts you and I pick up the tab for).
Trump's so-called "lies" often point toward underlying truths that spotlight real issues. Maybe the claim about people eating cats and dogs is exaggerated (likely it isn’t)—but it hints at something larger.
Take Springfield, a working-class town of 60,000, where 20,000 unassimilated Haitian immigrants were suddenly dumped, creating significant disruption. Even if the specifics seem off, the broader issue resonates. Many independents, upon hearing this are thinking, "Holy sh!t, that’s a real problem. I don't want that happening here." And that sentiment is pushing more voters toward supporting Trump.
Nevertheless, the claim that they are in fact butchering and dining on the local animals including people’s pets is backed up by plenty of evidence.
First of all, it’s a known fact that the majority of people in Haiti practice voodoo, a demonic practice that involves the slaughter for sacrifice of animals.
There is also abundant evidence that Haitians themselves consume cats, dogs and nearly anything else they can find on the island.
Finally, one of the biggest stories of the year last year was the ascension of Haiti warlord ‘Barbecue’ to the top slot on the island, a man known for literally barbecuing and eating his enemies.
Given the context, is it far-fetched to think that 20,000 Haitians—part of the 500,000 Biden allegedly allowed into the US and granted Temporary Protected Status under an expanded Obama-era law—might adhere to their traditional practices?
Originally, TPS was intended for those legally in the US during a natural disaster, not for retroactively legalizing the status of hundreds of thousands who entered illegally. Is it that farfetched to believe this influx would lead to Haitians in Springfield continuing to consume wild animals and stray pets, in line with their cultural habits?
We’ve heard numerous citizens testify directly about the destruction of their town and way of life including first hand testimony and video about the missing animals.
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1834926318883852543
https://x.com/nypost/status/1834922254838190118
The Attorney General of Ohio and eyewitness testimony confirms the claims.
https://x.com/sadreturn/status/1834019357178953947
https://x.com/RektUSD/status/1833723959587885335
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1833229682428547421
There is plenty of other evidence including first hand citizen testimony. All of the above is easily findable on Twitter or the internet.
https://x.com/MatchPoiint/status/1833017621903818755
https://x.com/Imsheeplovelies/status/1832897425171689792
https://x.com/Warden2025/status/1833874063187460253
https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1833161690684231817
So David Muir (ABC Moderator) dismissing the claim out of hand by saying, “That’s not happening - we talked to the city manager and he said he had no evidence” is a ridiculously weak and unfair counter to Trump’s claim.
Naturally, a city manager whose job and reputation depend on projecting an ideal image of the town to outsiders is inherently compromised in their assessment.
Mainstream media has become too quick to accept government and corporate denials at face value, rather than doing the hard work of investigative journalism to confirm or refute claims.
The press, once the gatekeepers of truth, now seems content to act as a mouthpiece for official narratives, leaving serious issues unexamined.
If we relied solely on corporate statements, companies like PG&E would still be poisoning communities and causing harm without accountability. Similarly, the Flint water crisis might have continued unchecked, with lead-contaminated water harming countless individuals, if not for investigative journalists who amplified the voices of the affected community and challenged the official accounts that downplayed the dangers.
It was only through listening to affected individuals and applying real scrutiny that these injustices were exposed. The abdication of true journalism is not only negligent but dangerous.
This is also a good time to broach the Streisand Effect I mentioned earlier.
The Streisand Effect refers to a phenomenon where attempts to suppress, censor, or hide information inadvertently draw more attention to it, often causing the information to spread more widely. It is named after singer Barbra Streisand, who in 2003 tried to have a photograph of her home removed from a public archive, but her legal action attracted far more public attention to the photo than if she had done nothing. The effect underscores how efforts to control or suppress information in the digital age can backfire, leading to the opposite of the intended result.
In this case, the media's efforts to fact-check Trump’s claim, “they’re eating the cats,” had the unintended consequence of amplifying the very narrative they sought to discredit. Rather than quelling the discussion, the widespread coverage spurred an explosion of online searches and memes, quickly gaining traction on social media.
What began as a fact-check of a seemingly outlandish statement morphed into a viral phenomenon, with users across platforms sharing memes, creating hashtags, and engaging in discussions that pushed the topic into the mainstream.
Ironically, by attempting to refute Trump’s claim, the media inadvertently thrust the broader issue of unchecked mass immigration and its impact on small communities into the forefront of the national conversation. The debate, which might have otherwise faded quickly, gained renewed attention as people questioned the real consequences of immigration policies. This viral moment served as a case study in how efforts to suppress or clarify information can, in the digital age, backfire, resulting in heightened visibility and unexpected public discourse.
We’ve seen Tik-Tok creators break out with numerous trending topics featuring mashups and new dances around the Trump statement.
What we’re seeing is millions of creators led by 10,000 Tip of the Spear autists literally pushing Trump singlehandedly towards the finish line.
A lot of boring old style conservatives are going to hate this, but this is how you beat a machine.
Memetic energy and spreading the word through unconventional means. They've already cornered the market on the legacy channels.
It's an insurgency.
It’s the classic left wing ‘hoax’ narrative they push to make Trump look bad that in the end usually produces a massive influx of attention and when the facts actually do come out? Trump is nearly always right.
The graphic looks something like this.
Here’s my friend Sean King with additional insight on the above:
Trump’s election/marketing strategy is brilliant. I doubt it’s strategic (it’s likely just his nature combined with social dynamics), but it’s incredibly effective as a practical matter. It works like this:
1) Trump states some “fact” in a frustrated, exaggerated, inflammatory and/or buffoonish way. “Crime has increased ten times during the Biden administration!” or “Leftist thugs criminals took over large parts of Seattle!”.
2) The press and anti-Trumpers go ballistic attacking Trump’s “extreme” statements and “fact-checking” him relentlessly.
3) Both Trump’s original claim and the incessant fact-checking by anti-Trumpers draws ENORMOUS attention to the issue. It becomes pretty much what everyone is talking about. He sucks essentially all the oxygen out of the room.
4) This “fact-checking” usually adds important nuance and thereby proves that Trump’s claims were exaggerated to the point that they are not *literally* true. “See, Trump lied again!”, they then exclaim. “Crime isn’t up 10X, it’s only up 40% under Biden!”
Or “Leftist thugs didn’t take over large parts of Seattle, they only took over several square blocks on Capitol Hill and declared it to be a lawless autonomous zone. And oh yah, they weren’t leftist thugs either, just nice but frustrated people trying to get their point across.”
5) But in doing this all the fact checkers implicitly do is confirm that Trump was substantively right in trajectory but technically wrong on amplitude. Not only is their “victory” over Trump hollow, it’s self-defeating. Trump gains more attention, the issue he’s points to becomes more well known, and the press spends less time on the candidate.
Someone (I forget who originally) once said that Trumpers “don’t take Trump literally, they take him seriously.” And that is what the anti-Trumpers don’t get. Proving that Trump “lied” because he exaggerated the extent to which crime went up, or the extent to which lawless leftists took over parts of Seattle, does nothing in most voters minds to cause them to dislike Trump or to dis-identify with him. If anything, the opposite happens.
Why? Because it’s common and normal to exaggerate something that PISSES YOU OFF. We do this all the time when we argue with our own spouses. “You ALWAYS leave the toilet lid up!” Or “You NEVER take out the trash!” Or “you spend our life savings gambling last month!”. Such statements are rarely true, but any good relationship counselor will tell you that they must be taken seriously!
Arguing the technicality of your spouses criticism by reminding your spouse that you did in fact close the toilet lid yesterday or that you did in fact take out the trash three days ago really misses the point. It’s taking the claim literally instead of seriously. It ignores the hurt, fear, anger and frustration that lead to the exaggeration in the first place. And so, EVEN IF YOU WIN by technically refuting the claim, YOU STILL LOSE.
Like a frustrated spouse, Trump’s supporters are understandably PISSED. And they want a candidate who is PISSED on their behalf. That’s Trump. Trump’s exaggerations capture their deep frustration.
And by proving Trump technically wrong over and over and over, the Dems ignore the very real and very deep hurt, fear, anger and frustration behind the exaggerations.
Almost nothing will cause irreparable damage to a relationship more than overlooking another’s hurt, fear, anger and frustration by proving them technically wrong about something that matter much to them. And almost nothing will bond people together more than empathy—that is, by meeting them where they are emotionally by focusing on the emotion behind the exaggerated claim rather than the claim itself.
Via this 👆🏽method, Trump is winning over tons of VERY LOYAL voters, including independents by almost two to one. And at the same time the Dem’s cruelty toward these voters (which is how its perceived when you focus on technicalities rather than on the substance of the pain/frustration that causes the exaggerated statements) risk permanently alienating a large swath of voters.
However, the primary concern with the influx of illegal immigrants from The Great Biden Invasion isn't that they’re consuming house pets. While such behavior is undoubtedly disturbing and problematic, it doesn’t represent an existential crisis.
The more pressing issue is the significant rise in serious crimes, such as murder and rape, attributed to these illegals. For instance, just this week in a nearby New York town, a family of four was tragically murdered by an undocumented immigrant who was already wanted for murder in their home country. This highlights a critical aspect of the broader security concerns associated with unauthorized immigration.
And as I wrote above, despite the media and Left’s best efforts to propagandize that violent crime is down, anyone with eyes and ears knows that’s not the case.
Subway ridership in NYC has dropped precipitously because women (and men) have decided it’s not worth risking their lives or being pushed in front of a train to ride public transit.
We got more evidence this week that like every other government statistic we see from the Biden administration like the fugazi jobs and inflation numbers, the violent crime numbers are also being manipulated to make the Democrats look better.
What if I told you that participation in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program is completely voluntary and starting in 2021, 37% of police departments stopped reporting crime data to the FBI, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York…
https://crimeresearch.org/2024/04/the-collapse-in-law-enforcement-as-arrest-rates-plummet-people-have-been-less-willing-to-report-crime/
So it’s no surprise when over 1/3 of departments responsible for reporting violent crime statistics are now counted as “Zero”, that the overall rate would come down.
In the end, Trump missed a golden chance to put this wretched empty suit out to pasture although the explosion of hilarious memes and viral social media clips seems to have blunted the worst of the damage.
Despite all this, I’m still a bit depressed and ticked off. And that’s because the stakes are so damn high. This isn’t a standard run of the mill Presidential election or small time Mayor. As I’ve written repeatedly, this is for ALL THE MARBLES. The fate of America and the West literally rests in the outcome.
So for Trump to go up there as unprepared and easily triggered as he was cuts deep. Too much is on the line to have an off night. This was like Eisenhower getting piss drunk the night before D-Day and sleeping through it or Washington falling out of the boat crossing the Delaware.
I don’t know WTF is going on in the Trump camp, but the Big Guy desperately needed Apollo Creed to get in his face pre-game and set the stage.
In the wake of an invasion by 20 million undocumented immigrants, the obliteration of the middle class by the highest inflation in our history, conflicts erupting all over the globe, and the administration's perilous game of Russian Roulette with a nuclear-armed Russia, the notion of "doing it tomorrow"doesn’t cut it.
Fortunately, we’ve continued to reap unearned gifts from the Twitter autists and the Cackles campaign itself.
As Scott Adams noted on the below video, “Is this mental illness, inebriation, or stupidity mixed with nerves? Reminds me of Britney Spears dancing with knives.”
That’s a good summary of the 10 minute interview Kamala did with a local Philadelphia radio station (only her 2nd since becoming the candidate, and the first by herself without her emotional support animal Tampon Tim by her side).
Here’s the full interview. Even if she didn’t preside over the worst 4 years the country has seen in nearly a century, is this the person you would vote to be the President?
And here are a few additional videos and tweets for your enjoyment:
https://youtube.com/shorts/PEJ1tCdc9dQ?feature=shared
Sept 11 Afterthought
Now, 23 years post-attack, patriotism is waning, and many young individuals no longer feel pride in their national identity. Nations lacking a unified bond—encompassing language, culture, and defined borders—coupled with leaders and citizens who lack optimism and a clear vision for the future, are at risk of perishing.
Only 18% of Americans aged 18-34 are "extremely proud" to be American.
I mean, look at this chart:
This country is far from perfect, but it’s a nation of self-improvers. When something is wrong, people take to the streets, protest, and make sure their voices get heard.
Mark Twain once said:
“I would teach patriotism in the schools, and teach it this way: I would throw out the old maxim, ‘My country, right or wrong,’ etc., and instead I would say, ‘My country when she is right.’ Because patriotism is supporting your country all the time, but your government only when it deserves it.
“So I would not take my patriotism from my neighbor or from Congress. I should teach the children in the schools that there are certain ideals, and one of them is that all men are created free and equal. Another that the proper government is that which exists by the consent of the governed.”
Well said sir.
What I’m Reading and Watching…
If you haven’t seen it yet, I’d recommend Reagan. It was a trip down memory lane for a big Reagan fan who actually lived through the era.
Many Republicans yearn for the era of Reagan, favoring his character over Trump's more divisive style. However, this perspective may be somewhat shortsighted. Both presidents implemented policies that significantly benefited the country, but collective memory can be selective and forgiving with time.
Those who lived through the Reagan years might recall that he, much like Trump, was vehemently criticized by both the press and the political left. Reagan was often caricatured as a reckless cowboy who might inadvertently lead the world into a third world war and was disparaged as an old, possibly senile man—criticisms strikingly similar to those leveled against Trump.
Moreover, recent publications by critics from within conservative ranks—such as a book by a notable NeverTrumper—paint Reagan in harsh tones, labeling him a racist and white supremacist, and drawing parallels between his ideologies and those attributed to Trump.
This revisionist critique suggests that the nostalgia for Reagan might overlook the contentious reality of his presidency, mirroring the contentious climate surrounding Trump. Thus, while longing for Reagan’s character, Republicans might consider the broader similarities in policy and public perception that unite both leaders beyond superficial differences.
The bottom line is that if Reagan were alive today and running, he’d be treated with the same extreme bias and slander that Trump has endured from day one.
Kamala's Mideast team of Islamists. I’ll say it again, if you’re Jewish and even considering voting for Kamala, you should have your head examined.
Best of Twitter
Memetic Warfare
Parting Words…
That’s it for this week folks! Hope you enjoyed and as always, please share it with a friend and consider becoming a paid subscriber.
I don’t think people understand the damage a fourth Obama term will do to the West.