Category Archives: US Politics

Hollywood infected their brain, now the Left has gone insane

Having ended up on the wrong side of a presidential election won by Donald Trump, you would think that the defeated would thoughtfully assess their future approach, in order to prevent such perceived disaster from striking again.

Alas, not. Just days after Stranger Things’ David Harbour reasserted the concerning and newly popular view that we should “punch Nazis” – without extensive vetting to confirm whether the attacked are, indeed, Nazis – in his SAG Awards speech, the danger of advocating physical assault on national television was realised.

Scene: University of California, Berkeley. Event: Milo Yiannopoulos’ cancelled speech.

They look just like protesters, no no, they’re ‘anti-fascists’, actually they’re just rioters.

The evening of 1 February 2017 was when gay, British right-wing provocateur Yiannopoulos advanced to the big leagues. After these protesters-turned-rioters shut down his event courtesy of ‘anti-fascism’ through violence, Milo had to be evacuated and, as a result, secured unprecedented coverage on primetime US cable news. His initial defeat ultimately proved to be a seismic victory – his biggest yet.

Pro-rioters will now go into deflect mode, moaning about how his free speech wasn’t impeded because he was a a paid speaker at a private event, and that he shouldn’t have been allowed as crybaby students were always going to throw their toys out of the pram over Big Bad Milo. 

But while the Breitbart editor, who is about to see his stock rocket skywards, was the reason for the grisly gathering; the riots weren’t really about the man on the final leg of his Dangerous Faggot Tour. Sorry, Milo. They were an opportunity for immoral losers to repudiate President Trump in the ugliest manner possible.

Opposition to Trump is, of course, perfectly acceptable and, depending on your politics, warranted. Advocating, supporting and glorifying violence – which has seeped from radical Leftist ‘anti-fascist’ land into the mainstream – isn’t.

People were sucker-punched, pepper-sprayed, inefficiently tonked by big poles and subject to tirades of filthy abuse from people who no doubt call themselves tolerant liberals.

Bank windows were smashed, ATMs bashed, and, in an ironic twist, promised refugee-hirer Starbucks ransacked by the sort of people their virtue-signalling was directed at.

And Hollywood is showing itself to be a vehicle for this incandescent movement. While increasingly loathed, the industry’ platform is huge and there are plenty out there who still hinge on stars’ every word. With that power should come responsibility, but it isn’t. Their reaction to Berkeley was not one of abhorrence, but of applause.

Take Judd Apatow, who boasts 1.9 million followers on Twitter. His response to the Berkeley riots, hours after they got under way and when the worst violence was apparent, was to condemn President Trump’s supporters, crowing that they are “fools” and that these chaotic happenings were just “the beginning”.

Not a word against the rioters or destructive actions, nor was there any consideration as to whether people were safe. No, the sheer hatred-at-all-costs from a Left engrossed in volatile radicalism threatens to rip apart the fibres holding American society together. 

The question should be asked of Apatow: if you consider Trump’s rhetoric to be damaging to the nation, Judd, why is your anger not also focussed on those committing actual violence?

Then there’s Debra Messing, who joyously proclaimed that “RESISTANCE WORKS!” and that they should “#NeverStop” upon hearing of the news. Instead of backtracking, she solidified her stance, arguing that such methods were acceptable as we aren’t in “an ideal world”.

I could go on, but you get the point: they aren’t just dirtying the debate, but enabling real-life violence which has real-life consequences. 

It’s also worth remembering hopeless CNN talking head Sally Kohn – who else will? – who had a cold, pre-election take that Trump supporters would be violent in defeat, while Hillary supporters would be “sad”. That aged well. And just imagine, if you will, the response if it were indeed Trumpites wreaking such havoc?

The ferocious vilification of Trump means that, less than a fortnight into his presidency, said violence is being condoned, styled as “resistance” – they believe themselves to be the heroes rising up against oppression, failing to recognise that it is they who are behaving like oppressors.

It’s worth remembering that so far, Trump’s most controversial move is an executive order for a 90-day suspension of immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries flagged up as possible threats by the Obama Administration.

Perhaps things will get worse – and even then, organised violence would not be appropriate – but right now, the impact of spiralling hysteria, energised by Hollywood ‘liberals’, is beginning to unfold.

Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are no secret. Many more nights like in Berkeley and he’ll have sufficient reason to act upon them. His calls for law and order have not gone unheard, and Leftist louts are, inadvertently, playing into hands. He also tweeted and teased, as he does, cutting UC Berkeley’s federal funding.

The sane Left is being swamped by this alt-Left, if you will. Keep feeding a doomsday narrative and the bullies will make the Left even more unelectable, leading middle-grounders fed up of senseless destruction inevitably into the Trump column.

Doubling down on failed, vitriolic tactics is lunacy, and now Hollywood is helping to amplify the loathing to unprecedented levels. Nobody likes Nazis, but some people are idiots – even the ones who aren’t Nazis.

The term, like “racist” and “fascist” has been redefined to simply be a Left-wing descriptor for a political opponent. Hence, their idea of “punching Nazis” has little, if anything, to do with real Nazis, it’s just their little way of justifying political violence – an attempt to normalise it.

And, Berkeley Leftists, a quick reminder: your city voted Democrat and for Hillary Clinton by a huge margin, as did your state. You’ve wrecked your own home – not Kansans, Iowans or Wisconsinites – and what’s more, you won’t be able to buy an overpriced latte in the morning for the time being.

Are you satisfied?

The Privileged Feminists’ March

Trigger warning: mansplaining

In case you hadn’t heard, and how could you not have with the fawning mainstream media, there was a women’s march in America today and in other countries home to Lefties who love a good protest, but bizarrely, not voting.

They styled themselves as the Resistance, despite having spent eight years cheerleading the man who has just left the White House – very edgy. Anyway, a “women’s march”. What pressing issues facing women around the world could they possibly have tackled? Female genital mutilation (FGM)? Child marriages? The ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia because they may receive sexual gratification from the vibrations?

No, President Trump.

Strange, isn’t it? These are the women who love to bang on about “privilege”, specifically white, male, cisgender privilege. Yet in the midst of placard-waving self-righteousness, they forget their own first world privilege. Instead of fighting the real injustices their fellow gender faces around the globe, they’d rather whine about an elected president who threatens precisely zero of their constitutional rights.

So what are they moaning about? An incident involving the now-regularly correct Piers Morgan came a cropper to a privileged feminist who took umbrage at him referring to her and others as “ladies”. Emily Davison or Emmeline Pankhurst she most certainly isn’t.

One wonders what a woman in Riyadh or Somalia would think of a self-obsessed march focussing on what someone has said rather than done – it’s staggering ignorance and privilege. There is nothing brave or strong about the women marching in America, nor was there anything heroic about Meryl Streep’s anti-Donald Trump speech at the Golden Globes. It’s echo chamber – big echo chamber, granted, but still echo chamber – stuff from people crying to audiences they know will pacify them.

If these women were brave, they would be protesting the likes of FGM. Their “SlutWalks” would take place in the Middle East, not the middle of Los Angeles. That we could simply see their faces at the march is proof they aren’t that oppressed.

Another wildly inaccurate feminist line is that right-wingers only care about women’s rights when it presents a chance to bash Islam. Well, better to be accused of bashing Islam while caring about African and Middle Eastern women than not caring about them at all. And, with militant feminists being one of Christianity’s biggest critics, they can hardly claim to be the guardians of religious liberty.

All of this is even odder considering just a few weeks’ ago the same people were proclaiming how they were “citizens of the world”. To most of them, that means citizens of the predominantly white, liberal world, as they don’t give a jot as to what goes on outside of it. And in their world, the reality is Trump is of little to no danger.

In fact, despite pledging to defund Planned Parenthood – which Lefties, in a protest at Trump, amusingly proved could be privately-funded – the Republican president has praised parts of the organisation and is much more liberal than many in his party are and his former presidential candidates were on women’s healthcare, specifically on abortion. Trump stressed how important he felt it was for the government to fund women’s health issues. Agree or disagree, he’s hardly the enemy. Moreover, his daughter Ivanka is sure to nudge him in a liberal direction if the past 18 months are anything to go on.

Twelve years ago, Trump made filthy, derogatory comments about women, apologised for the words, denied the actions and hasn’t been prosecuted for anything. He has continued to be vulgar, crude and brash, yet on November 8 the New Yorker was elected President of the United States. The “Women’s March”, occurring one day after his inauguration, is a sulky protest at an election that didn’t go their way. Nothing more, nothing less.

Trump may not be a traditional role model, but were there protests against Barack Obama in 2008 when the former president won the White House while opposing same-sex marriage? Were shop windows smashed or conservative journalists pushed around? Of course not. But these protesters, despite the will of their nation (no, the popular vote doesn’t count) aren’t even willing to give the new guy an opportunity.

It’s further indication that the oh-so-tolerant liberals of the Left do not practice what they preach. Comedic talking head Sally Kohn mused before the election that Trump supporters would be violent if their man lost, while Hillary fans would simply be sad. Wrong, again.

Not to mention, many of the “feminists” peddling these marches are as morally bankrupt as they perceive Trump to be. Take the insufferable Laurie Penny for example. During the inauguration, she felt the need to bring up her period on Twitter, claiming that it “started with a vengeance” during the speech. As well as filing that into the “Things that Never Happened” folder, Laurie shows that she’s not exactly a role model either.

It doesn’t matter how many turned up to the march. It doesn’t matter how many signed your stupid petition. It doesn’t matter how many snarky comments you make. It doesn’t matter how many times Trump is “absolutely destroyed by John Oliver”. It doesn’t matter that you’re wearing a silly-looking pink pussy hat. Nothing will matter until you leave your “the world is against me” bubble.

America hates women so much that it enabled one to become nominee for president – even one as useless as Hillary Clinton. Saudi Arabia hates women so much that they all have male guardians, only one in eight work and they are told how to dress.

But keep imploding about your new president who said mean things, you privileged cry-babies.

A list of everybody who absolutely destroyed Donald Trump in 2016

​Donald J. Trump really has been the gift that’s kept on giving over the past 18 months. His presidential bid was literally hilarious and provided all of the highly-respected late-night liberal TV hosts a never-ending wealth of material that could be condensed – either daily or weekly –  into YouTube clips and shared across social media.

Trump’s brash, triggering style, which earned him widespread condemnation from our favourite Hollywood stars and paved the way for Hillary Clinton’s storming victory in the popular vote.

Here’s a list of everybody who absolutely destroyed Donald Trump in 2016:

The end.

Liberals, it’s time to wake the hell up

It’s not in my political interest to write this piece. I know that if you had your way you would deem this article as “hate speech” and prevent it from being published. Nobody is taking more delight in your hilarious meltdown than me.

It thrills me that your left-wing agendas are being thwarted by electorates across the globe. But to prevent one-party states and to at least give us a challenge, I come to you with this message: liberals, it’s time to wake the hell up and get out of your pathetic safe space.

Your smaller-than-thought clique has had a pretty rotten 2016, hasn’t it? Well, do you know what? Most of us are having a darn good 2016 because we’re running you muppets into the ground. Brexit happened, and now President Trump has happened, and you’re throwing one big, fat, beautiful temper tantrum.

Hell, besides not having a confirmed war hawk in the White House, Trump’s ascendancy is irrelevant to me. He’s not going to impact my life, but if it stops your oppressive, shaming manifesto from gaining traction, I’ll revel in it.

“I don’t know anyone who voted for Brexit,” said British liberals. “I don’t know anyone who voted for Trump,” said American liberals. “Je ne- I don’t know anyone who voted for Le Pen,” French liberals could well end up saying next May.

Why? Two reasons. First, you’re living in a self-imposed echo chamber. You read the articles you know you’ll agree with, post statuses you know your left-wing friends will like, and follow those preaching from the same songbook, all for confirmation bias. If you coddle yourself with comforting views you’ll be fine, right?

And secondly, because you prefer shutting down those you disagree with, instead of engaging in fierce, political arguments. It’s time to end this nonsense that “college-educated” people know better than the rest, when your modus operandi is to ban right-wing speakers from appearing at your universities. Graduates are now college-indoctrinated, not college-educated.

You think it helps you but it doesn’t. Brexit won by four percent, Trump by a mere few thousand in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the states that pushed him past 270. That’s close. Had you not pissed off so many people, you might have been able to stop both.

You created Trump. If things were going swimmingly, do you really think 60 million would have been prepared to take a chance on a brash, political novice? Trump is clever, not a buffoon. Reality TV stars know what people want, and Trump realised people were sick to death of political correctness and the politicians who abide by it because, God forbid, you be upset and start a petition against them.

You hate the term “social justice warrior”. Well, we hate being called racist, sexist, misogynist, and any other “ist” that you slap on us. We’re now at the stage where we don’t bother defending ourselves from your filth. We’d rather laugh at you, beat you at the ballot box, drink your tears and share memes of Pepe the Frog instead.

Too alt-right for you? Cry more.

The minorities you supposedly speak for detest your guts too. They aren’t your pets and they certainly don’t need your help. For all the talk of Trump being the big bogeyman, he outperformed the previous Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney with both blacks and Hispanics. Oh, and those women we were told Trump offended big league, they didn’t break to the Democratic candidate any more than they usually do either.

Let’s also consider how Trump won the Electoral College. He won six key states that Barack Obama won twice: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. The math alone is indicative that there must have been a considerable number of Obama-Trump crossovers, nullifying the idea of a racist backlash.

As with nearly all of your “arguments”, they fall down like a house of cards as soon as somebody bothers to give them scrutiny.

You’re now at rock bottom. Britain is leaving the European Union, Donald Trump is going to be the next Leader of the Free World and continental Europe could elect Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and Alternative for Deutschland within the next 12 months. If your Dutch, French and German counterparts continue down this insane track, all three could easily end up in charge of their respective nations. And you’ll be asking yourself “How did this happen?” yet again.

I hope this big, fat micro-aggression triggered your poor little Tumblr soul to death. I hope you are now ready to go and grab political debate by the pussy.

But if you don’t, it doesn’t bother me. Why? Because I’m winning, and you’re not.

Photo source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_12.jpg

Donald Trump’s route to 270 is fiendish, but he only needs 269 – and here’s how he could do it

It’s no secret that Donald Trump’s path to 270 electoral votes is much tougher than Hillary Clinton’s. Simply nailing down Pennsylvania and one of Florida, North Carolina or Ohio would effectively block Trump’s route to the White House.

However, there’s one caveat hardly anyone seems to be considering, and it could just be pivotal. Trump doesn’t need a path to 270, just to 269 – and there’s a realistic set of states that can get him there.

A 269-269 tie would result in an electoral college deadlock, at which point the House of Representatives would pick the next president, while the Senate would choose the next vice president.

Let’s make two assumptions: one, that the House will still belong to the GOP after the election (a near certainty), and that two, that GOP House would make Trump president should they get the opportunity (yes, I know it’s 2016, but surely, surely they would).

Anyway, enough wonky politics and what-ifs, and into the mathematics.

Since Clinton’s route is so easy, it’s much more revealing to focus solely on how Trump could defeat her – well, tie it up. Providing nothing bizarre happens and The Donald keeps Texas, Georgia and Arizona (a state that’s in true toss-up territory but would likely go Trump’s way should he win the other states needed for this avenue) in the red column, he would have 191 electoral votes.

Iowa, the Hawkeye State, will perhaps be Trump’s easiest state to win that Romney failed to. Polls have consistently shown the GOP nominee leading and, although he has slipped, the slight movement back toward him late on should be enough to win here. That’s 197.

Head eastwards to the Buckeye State of Ohio and Trump has 18 electoral votes that have trended his way, narrowly, for a while. Despite not securing the support of the state’s Republican governor, John Kasich, he has eked out a small edge of around one or two points over Clinton. Flipping this Obama-won state seems more likely than not. That’s 215.

Down to the Panhandle and the Sunshine State of Florida. The prize? A mighty 29 electoral votes in the increasingly diverse state. A notorious election-decider, Florida has swayed back and forth intriguingly during this election cycle.

Both Trump and Clinton secured thumping wins in their respective primaries, and are now neck-and-neck in the polls seven days out. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll gave Trump a four-point lead, while an NBC/WSJ/Marist poll put Clinton one point up. If the FBI bombshell does indeed harm Clinton, Trump may reap the rewards. That’s 244.

North Carolina was won by Romney in 2012 by two percent, but it’s a state that Trump is having significant difficulty with. The early voting has given off blurry signals but the polling has hinted at a Clinton win (as of November 1, she has a 3.3-point advantage according to RealClearPolitics.

A big turnout for Trump on Election Day, and the Tar Heel State has a large number of independents which will likely determine it, and he, like Romney, could tip the Cinton-leaning scales post-early voting. Humour me and make this assumption, and that’s 259.

These scoops would still put Trump 10 short of the tie, taking his quest to Colorado, the 420 blaz… Centennial State, where nine more votes are up for grabs. The Clinton camp thought Colorado was in the bag months back and pulled advertising, allowing Trump to drastically close the gap.

A calamitous early-to-mid October arrested Democrat concerns but the state isn’t a guarantee, with a CBS/YouGov poll putting Clinton just three points up in the sparsely-polled state. Recent Remington Research findings have her one point ahead, although this pollster is Republican aligned. Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll conducted more than a fortnight ago had Clinton’s lead at eight. In short, the polling is a mess, but points toward a small to medium HRC win, yet with limited confidence.

Ballots are already being mailed in and Trump has also been pressing hard recently there. Colorado is a tough task, but it looks far more viable than the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin paths being touted by talking heads. If he does complete the heist then that’s 268. One short.

They do things differently up in the Pine Tree State of Maine (and Nebraska too, for that matter). While two electoral votes are available for a statewide win, one additional vote is given to the winner of the state’s 1st and 2nd congressional districts. The limited polling indicates Trump is a good bet for the latter. Things have been volatile and his prospects are nowhere near as bright as in September, where he enjoyed double-digit leads, but it definitely looks doable. And if he does, that’s 269 and likely the presidency.

Fail that, and Nevada’s six electoral votes could nudge him north of 270.

trump-269

It’s a thin, treacherous tightrope and one Trump has a greater chance of falling off than walking across, but it offers a glimmer of hope that the proposed Rust Belt strategy doesn’t seem to. Barring a big polling error, foreseeable in these Brexit times of course, in Pennsylvania or Michigan (which missed Bernie Sanders’ primary win by 20 points), that route looks blocked for Trump.

Anyway, back to the original premise: the idea that 269 being enough for Trump could make all the difference. It’d be bizarre, wacky, unprecedented and bonkers. But has there been a more bizarre, wacky, unprecedented and bonkers election than 2016?

 

Donald Trump is politically bombproof but politically incompetent

Donald Trump is staggeringly unpopular in the United Kingdom, with most miffed about how a campaign such as his could gain the astonishing traction it has. The majority of those then conclude that racism isn’t dead across the pond and that demagogues can win because, hey, look what happened in the 1930s.

These are unsurprising assumptions from those who dip in and out of the race and need constant reminders of how the electoral college works. They aren’t wholly wrong, but they can’t truly understand what’s going on as they aren’t immersed in the madcap reality Americans currently are.

Trump has gone after Mexico, China and goodness knows where else, but his most persistent and successful attacks have been levelled at an enemy much closer to home: the mainstream media.

Trump laid the groundwork for this when he kicked off his campaign, and has continued to build on it throughout. Barely a rally goes by without a fierce probe on the ‘dishonest press’ for not panning the crowd or reporting accurately – or at least Trump’s version of accurately. Cringe-inducing tweets about a “dopey” journalist or how much of a disaster former promoter Morning Joe is come morning, noon and night too.

This war on the media has proven mightily effective, so much so that he can easily spout a plethora of lies and half-truths before dodging the splashback. Harsh criticism of Trump from the media, whether it’s warranted or not, screams of, “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” to his fervent followers, many of whom then visit their chosen online right-wing source for the “real” news, if only for confirmation bias.

Americans’ trust in the mass media is at a historical low, with just 32 percent saying they have either a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust, according to a recent Gallup poll – an 8-percent decline from a year ago. Much of that can be attributed to Trump, who has simply exploited the omnipresent scepticism of mainstream media. Moreover, a CNN poll discovered that 50 percent deem Trump trustworthy. That’s a whopping 18 percent higher than the media’s trust ratings, and 15 percent greater than Hillary Clinton’s, his presidential adversary.

It’s what makes fact-checking a waste of time too, even from those doing it diligently with noble intentions.

Trump’s lies are pretty obvious – like when he called Clinton the co-founder of Islamic State who, as we all know, was in cahoots with President Barack Obama. Or when he said that Clinton would “abolish the Second Amendment”. But if a voter isn’t picking up on his brazen lies from the off, they aren’t about to do so from a smarmy know-it-all whose reputation Trump has directly or indirectly chipped away at.

Independent fact-checkers are a bit better, but once into the muddier waters of half-lies and half-truths, the implicit bias of the author will inevitably slip in, no matter how much they strive to be impartial.

Not to mention, those with the time and desire to traipse through a fact-checking sheet are likely to be well aware of the happenings of the election and the world to have worked out the “pants on fire” stuff for themselves. Fact-checking is a tool made by political junkies for political junkies, so trapped in their echo chamber that they think everyone cares about the new CNN poll for Pennsylvania and the subtleties of the crosstabs.

Trump is nigh on politically bombproof to media criticism; it’s his penchant for a personal dogfight which has harmed him – borne out of his thin skin and political inexperience. A sweeping generalisation on illegal Mexican immigrants being rapists is forgotten because it’s political, a singular attack from an oafish Trump on an undeserving target isn’t since it’s personal – a big guy going after a little guy doesn’t play well, unless that little guy is Marco Rubio.

Had Trump buried the Obama birther debate years ago, left Judge Gonzalo Curiel alone and responded respectfully with an olive branch to the Gold Star Khan family, he would probably be on his way to victory, simply because despite all of this it’s still a very tight race, largely because – on a personal level at least – Clinton is also an appalling candidate whose image has plummeted.

But, of course, that’s not in his nature, and Democrats are ever-grateful it isn’t, for it has given them plenty of juicy ad material and nice bait for Trump to hook himself with, as Clinton demonstrated in the first debate.

It comes from Trump’s belief that “all publicity is good publicity” and that as a counter-puncher, if someone, anyone, hits him – or he perceives them to have – then he must whack back twice as hard. That may work in business, but on the political battlefield, it’s about knowing when to pick or avoid fights.

If Trump loses by a big margin on November 8, something looking increasingly unlikely, he and his ideas would have been firmly rejected. A narrow defeat, however, it would be because the electorate deemed the orator of those ideas too inarticulate and lacking the political savvy to be a safe pair of hands in the White House.

But if Trump wins, it won’t be because of policy, for he has few. Nor will it solely be down to his brash outsider status. No, the main reason will be because he took on the media, discredited them further and, in doing so, made himself immune – even when he had no right to be.

How Donald Trump conned conservatives

The reality of a con doesn’t truly set in until you know you’ve been had with no chance of an exit – a Trexit, if you will. At this point, solely to save face, you’ll scramble to convince others and most importantly yourself that it isn’t that bad and pretty much what you wanted in the first place.

This is the predicament many of Donald Trump’s fiercest supporters find themselves in after his most stunning flip-flop yet. Newsflash: the original vote-garnering plan to deport 11 million illegal immigrants is not going to happen.

Instead, the attempted new and kinder politics (has he been taking tips from Jeremy Corbyn?) from The Donald has offered up some thoughts that it’s “tough” to deport those who’ve been here for a long time and if they pay back taxes then all will be fine and dandy. I know, it doesn’t sound like him either.

No one has been left smarting more than Ann Coulter, the renowned author so strongly supportive of the real estate magnate since he announced his candidacy last June.

She has already stated that the tour for her new book In Trump We Trust could be the “shortest book-tour ever” if he comes up empty on immigration. But, true to the form of somebody too far invested to get out at this late stage, Coulter herself now seems to be softening on the issue.

“Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay,” she mused, buyer’s remorse on full display. After all, the wall’s still going up, for now, and shipping 11 million out was never going to work anyway, was it? And some of them, I suppose, are good people – aren’t they? Correct, Ann.

It’s a far cry from the chatter that had Coulter and co stumping for Trump as he battled off RINOs and Lyin’ Ted prior to and during the primaries. While Trump himself may never have been committed, Coulter and the likes of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al) – who is reluctantly contemplating concessions – were then and are now.

But they are in such a hole, with trusted conservative Cruz long gone and Trump confirmed as the nominee, that they have little choice but to stay on the train. After all, what happens if conservatives back out on Trump now? They get Hillary Clinton. And whatever the fallout of the GOP cart crashing and burning in November, it still wouldn’t be as bad as aiding a Clinton victory. The doors are locked and they’re in it to win it, at whatever cost to their principles – except for Cruz, who now looks ripe for a second coming should Trump fall short.

While it’s true that Trump’s bid is not entirely fuelled by his immigration stance (during the primaries, many Republican voters cited the economy as their biggest concern, particularly further north), his positions in this field have dominated his campaign’s narrative.

Hence, flip-flops in other areas were forgivable, with Trump voters consoling themselves that whatever happens in other areas, the immigration package is being sold as promised.

Conservatives are now lumped with a candidate espousing similar views to Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, without the much-needed caveats of electoral advantage and smooth delivery. At least with those weak, low-energy choices, the chances of getting into the most obscene and unnecessary spats is negligible. Even in the unlikelihood these incidents haven’t done Trump damage, they certainly haven’t helped and have prevented him from going all-out on (Crooked) Hillary.

We now have a scenario where the new, admittedly 70-year-old kid on the political block is forcing some give out of even the most hardened immigration voices. Perhaps he is the ultimate negotiator after all.