Some X reaction to the puerile antics of Chris “Sun-King” Sununu. The rest of America now knows what we in New Hampshire already knew. The Sun-King is an arrogant, entitled CLOWN whose political success is owed entirely to the New Hampshire Communist (Democrat) Party running candidates so far to the Left that not even the very Left-of-center New Hampshire electorate could stomach them:

Chris Sununu is a sniveling politician who was also repudiated by the people in NH, especially Republicans.

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 24, 2024

Way to go, insult a large portion of the conservative electorate, Sununu. You are irrelevant after today and it’s about time. Totally out of touch. https://t.co/9hFyhEcb0w

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) January 23, 2024

Salem Township, the home of the Sununu family dynasty, broke for @realDonaldTrump in overwhelming numbers.

With an estimated 91% reporting, it's 67.6/31.8 for Trump.

— Rich Baris The People's Pundit (@Peoples_Pundit) January 24, 2024

What I really forward to tonight is not only a smashing victory for @realDonaldTrump but also a stinging personal repupdiation of NH Governor Chris Sununu perhaps the single most pompous jerk-offs and assholes in the history of American politics #Pig-eyes

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) January 24, 2024

Is there anyone more annoying than Sununu? Besides Nikki Haley?

— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) January 23, 2024

Sununu 1 month ago: "It's an absolute win. Nikki is going to win in a landslide."

Sununu today: "Nobody expects Nikki to win."

FLIP FLOP! What happened, Governor? pic.twitter.com/tQuYphYmsJ

— Karoline Leavitt (@kleavittnh) January 23, 2024

 

The post The Beclowning Of Chris “Sun-King” Sununu … Now The Rest Of America Knows appeared first on Granite Grok.

I’ve decided to put into words a “cyber journal entry,” for lack of better phrasing. This comes less than 24 hours after holding a Trump sign outside a school in the suburbs. I will first mention my gratitude in having the freedom of speech that one has when not being a candidate or paid spokesperson for a candidate.

In more blunt terms, let’s call it freedom from old-school manners.

Trolling happens in the adult world, mostly online, but unsurprisingly, also in person, especially when it comes to Trump. I volunteered to do my part and put in some time holding his sign and joined some like-minded folks yesterday. A surly man approached me and asked why I support Trump. My rusty, knee-jerk reaction was to go into salesman mode as if I had just rang this stranger’s doorbell. When I randomly named a few of the common answers to his question, he went into full-blown high-on CNN Kool-Aid mode.

After a few volleys, I said, “I can see where this discussion is going, and I’m done talking to you.” When he claimed to be an undecided independent, which was possibly partially true or a total lie, I said, “It’s obvious that you’ve rehearsed all the scripted talking points to refute me, no matter what path we take.” Like a school bully, he said, “but so have you.” I replied, “but YOU were the one who approached me and initiated this talk.”

At this point, one of my peers, who happened to be a good subject matter expert in one of the commonly debated related topics, stepped in and took over. A few minutes later, he went into the building. A while after that, a couple approached our group, and they similarly initiated such talk. This time, I was a passive observer as they split up the discussion, kind of like doing man-to-man instead of zone defense. After a few minutes of that unpleasantness, I thought about my cold extremities and full bladder. I told the last unoccupied team member that I was leaving and didn’t want to interrupt either of the other two. This trend of brick-and-mortar trolling was definitely taking up too much space in my mind in the hours that followed. I thought of my mother and her “sticks and stones” lecture that is commonly given to small school children, so so was in the 70s. Then I thought about the whole modern “walk away” concept, which is difficult to implement in such a venue.

We want to thank Julie Smith for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

At this point, it should be clarified that this article is not about the merits of voting for Trump or criticism of his critics. It’s about handling one particular variety of them. While there are many varieties of them, I’m not going to mince words. I’m talking about the plain old-ass hole variety. They clearly have no interest in polite discourse in bringing people together as evidenced in their modus operandi. They are just agitators wanting to troll. I thought about ways to shut them down, not silencing them but shutting down their dialogue with those uninterested in engagement with their drivel. The minefield to navigate is their switching of tactics to debating WHY you’re unwilling to have their conversation. They will, of course, insult you for that. Don’t dignify them by playing defense. I will refer you to a 4-minute Prager U parenting podcast.

When a kid asks their parents WHY they just barked a particular order, the parents are advised to say, “Because I said so.” That used to drive me nuts as a kid when my parents, mostly my mother, did that once I “poked the bear” too hard in my persistent pursuit to have my way. Don’t let the troll play armchair cross-examining lawyer with you. Say “I would prefer not to (have this conversation)” when approached with a “why do you support Trump” and smell ill intentions. Of course, this requires a bit of profiling and supposition, but such people are not going to just disappear. Implementing the philosophy of acceptance (that they’re here to stay) is necessary. It’s a good idea to have tools in your toolbox, and this is one of them.

I also recommend the 2001 movie Bartleby the Scrivener if you’re into that kind of humor.

So, all in all, I share these thoughts that might prove helpful to some but not necessarily to all. If you, dear reader, think this tactic might be useful, try it. But then again, maybe you “would prefer not to.”

The post Handling Trolls at the Polls appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you recall, I reported on an email exchange with an editor or researcher (or some such thing) from NewsGuard. They are a deep-state surveillance stooge for policing unapproved content. Put another way, the lower your rating, the less likely you are peddling the uniparty, globalist narrative

I am happy to report that, as expected, NewGuard gave GraniteGrok a 37.5 rating (100 being the best).

I won’t go into the details because all you need to know is that a well-funded tool of the speech police has branded us as unfavorable to their message control, and I look forward to fundraising off that, especially since the primary complaint appears to be that we, frequently publish false or egregiously misleading claims about US elections and COVID 19 vaccines.

That’s a very strange lede, given that what we’ve published about vaccines has turned out to be as true.

I can only assume that the other venues for information peddled as news – especially in New Hampshire – did better than we did, given that most of them have yet to report anything honest about the Vaccines even after the CDC, FDA, and other agencies have admitted to issues that are costing us points. But, I would like to thank NewsGuard for making my job easier. If they have rated local and regional media, we can look at those numbers and know where to dig deeper.

One of my projects this year is to expose them for failing to challenge the truth about the covid response, especially vaccines.

So, this is good for us, yes? It is. A self-proclaimed third party with suspect funding and ties to the government has decided we aren’t toeing establishment uni-party lies.

As for elections, the funny thing is that, as we just reported how, the state’s chief elections and law enforcement agencies have admitted, in writing, to evidence of gross negligence by election officials (in 2020 and 2022) whose failure to follow multiple election laws compromised integrity, and election results.

I’m not sure where else in the 75+ NewsGuard rating universe you are likely to find that, but if I had to guess, it’d be nowhere, which goes for the honest reporting about concerns over experimental injections that were given without full informed consent.

37.5

We’ll take it.

Some browsers will ask your permission to view this video from Facebook on NewsGuard.

The post NewsGuard Helps The ‘Grok Add to Its Independent Media Credentials appeared first on Granite Grok.

As promised in Monday Memes, I have an overflow. Yes there will be a Friday edition too.

Let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:

 

*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, up until, perhaps, the mid to late 1800s in the US.  Still, point taken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of a Robin Williams line (IIRC him):  “I don’t mind if it’s my time to die.  What if it’s the pilot’s time to die”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The agency that regulates these products is also a part co-owner of these products and makes money through their sale?  Can we spell CONFLICT OF INTEREST?  Same for all the CDC / FDA people who get “royalties” from pharma – but then contribute to the approval process of those same products.

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Pick of the Post:

 

 

OOH, I know they want to keep Trump out.

OTOH, this is a very shrewd concept if they try this.  As a back-up plan if they can’t stop him.  And then we’re screeeewwwwwweeeeed.  The WH and both chambers?

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Palate cleansers:

 

—

—

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Come back on Friday for more memes.  Same meme time.  Same meme channel.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.

As if the climate cult needed fuel for its wildfire narrative, Quebec lit up like a Christmas tree in June Last year. We showed satellite images of multiple fires starting almost simultaneously under a clear sky (so not lightning strikes). Not lighting. Not Climate change. Brian Paré.

Bri-Bri made the case online that the government set those fires, and given how Prime Minister ‘Troo-doh!’ is always looking for a climate axe to grind, why not? “[Paré] repeatedly posted conspiracy theories suggesting the fires had been set by the government in an attempt to coerce the public into believing in climate change.” But there are plenty of examples of climate cultists starting fires (or derailing trains) to create environmental catastrophes, not on the scale of minorities and hate hoaxes or consenting college girls crying rape the next day, but the scope of these less frequent events is typically greater.

“On May 31 at 8:30 pm, the town of Chapais issued a mandatory evacuation order due to the raging fires, in particular the fire at Lake Cavan as well as the airport fire, two fires that are included in the charges and were caused by the accused,” [Prosecutor Marie-Phillippe] Charron stated.

We reported on Canadian forest fires last summer. You couldn’t avoid it. The smoke had converted the airspace over US cities to match the gloomy dystopian reality on the ground (after decades of Democrat rule). A week into the alleged man-caused climate disaster, it was obvious men were involved more directly. “In the past months, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have arrested several arsonists who have been charged with lighting fires across several provinces, including Nova Scotia, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta. The motive behind lighting the fires is unclear. One Albertan, John Cook, has been arrested and charged with 10 counts of arson after setting a string of wildfires in and around Cold Lake, a hamlet near Edmonton.”

Paré (Brian) pleaded guilty “to 13 counts of arson and one count of arson with disregard for human life at a courthouse in Chibougamau, Quebec on Monday. Two further charges of breaking and entering, and causing a public nuisance have been conditionally suspended.” That’s fourteen fires on him, to which he has copped. There may be more to which he has not.

Those wild fires were man-made but not the way the Climate fearmongers would prefer. Fires set by arsonists are a product of the culture, not the climate. Some people just want to see the woods burn.

 

The post Canadian Who Blamed Wildfires on the Government Pleads Guilty to 14 Counts of Arson appeared first on Granite Grok.

You guys do not make this easy. Another great week of comment content and the addition of a few new names I don’t recall seeing or seeing in a while. Thanks for reading and engaging not just the content but each other.

We did have some intrigue last week. I received emails challenging whether certain First Amendment exercises were unconscionable and, therefore, not protected speech. After review, the alleged offenses were deemed protected. That will piss someone off, no doubt, but I can’t help how you feel, and I won’t delete content or ban someone unless there is a clear incitement to violence or explicit threats against a person or group.

Trolls don’t get that consideration, for the record, nor does the inappropriate or excessive reliance on the use of “adult language.” No porn, obviously, with rare exceptions related to the current debate of age-appropriate material in schools and libraries. When possible, we will edit out the offense and not the speaker, but repeat offenses could get you the boot in part for wasting our time.

I was also asked about why someone got banned for something while others with perhaps an opposing opinion were not. I didn’t ban them so that one is still under investigation – I’m waiting on them for more details.

This isn’t rocket science—attack issues, not people.

And, as a side note, I have a lot of emails left to sort and several submitted op-eds to review. If you sent a piece, it is likley waiting for me to get to it.

Comment of the Week

Many a great remark we shared last week, and I am seeing longer and more involved debates on some posts, which is exactly what we want. I apologize for not being nearly as engaged as many of our authors, but I find myself overly busy, and since we missed our fundraising target for 24, I am pulling in other work to make up the difference. If you’d like to help us reach the goal this year, you know what to do.

I pulled at least two dozen great comments to review for last week, but as you all know, there can be only one.

Dan McGuire.

Ian (deliberately, I think) misses the point. This constitutional amendment is a direct attack on the incorrect Claremont supreme court decision from the 90’s. That decision said that “cherish” meant “pay for”. He is right that it never did, but that’s not what they said. This is the subtle way to kick them in the pants to changing that ruling, without having to reprint the constitution. Of course, it will never pass because so many D’s love dem an adequate education, but at least we can get the issue percolating again. The real bit I think you should consider is what was the 1784 meaning of “public schools”. Might it be the current British meaning of the phrase, i.e. what we now call private schools? [I will, of course, be using Ian’s point about “and” as part of the argument to reinterpret “cherish”. As inigo Montoya said, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” ]

There were plenty of other comments as good, but Dan’s unique take on this issue intrigued me. “The real bit I think you should consider is what was the 1784 meaning of “public schools.”

I’d not seen it or heard it (and maybe I missed it elsewhere), so thanks to Ian for inspiring Dan to write it – Ian, as always, has a lot of keen insights on this and other issues. And isn’t that what this is all about? Conversations that allow debate move the needle in our minds to a perspective we’d not yet considered.

I think it is. That’s what I want to build here and we’ve always had a great foundation to rise from.

Congrats to Dan, and since we’re halfway through this week, I need to start looking for the next winner.

 

The post Last Weeks Comment of the Week (And a Clarification about Comment Rules) appeared first on Granite Grok.

In a remarkable segment of the FOX News coverage of the New Hampshire Primary, Charles Payne went off on Democrat pundit Jessica Tarloff on the divisiveness of Joe Biden and the Democrat message. Payne is a brilliant business and political analyst and is a Black man.

On Tuesday night, in an emotional moment, Payne set Tarloff straight on the difference between Trump taking on individuals like DeSantis and Haley and the President of the United States denigrating half of the country by calling them MAGAs in a derogatory manner. MAGA is an acronym coined by Donald Trump to denote his Make America Great Again movement. Biden has taken the term MAGA and twisted it to describe the demonic, Nazi-like, radical, white supremacist followers of Donald Trump who are anti-American and a danger to Democracy.

As a man who grew up knowing the racism Charles Payne experienced as a black child in New York, he dispelled the notion that Trump is a racist and minimized his personality that takes on opponents with terse terms versus Biden labeling half the country as disgusting human beings. His claim is the vitriol that Biden spews is far more damaging to the country. I could not agree more and have written about it often.

But aside from this uncharacteristic emotional outburst, Charles is a numbers guy, and the results of the 2024 NH Primary are a numerologist’s playground. New Hampshire has a unique voter demographic where the largest block of registered voters identify as Independent. There are roughly 303,000 Democrats, 299,000 Republicans, and 400,000 Unafiliated or Independents registered to vote in the Granite State. NH allows Independents to vote in the Primary on the Party ballot of choice and then change their affiliation back to Independent after voting. It makes predicting elections very difficult in New Hampshire as you need to identify the trend of 400,000 voters that can go either way. The Independents played a significant role in Tuesday’s results.

I covered in a previous article why Joe Biden did not appear on the Democrat ballot, and he won the Democrat race on the wings of a successful write-in campaign, though the Democrat vote count was suppressed. There were over 300,000 Republican votes cast and only 96,000 Democrat votes. There was evidence of many Independents casting their vote for Nikki Haley, but their vote was more Anti-Trump than Pro-Haley. This Independent movement accounted for the closer-than-expected margin of victory for Trump. Many polls had Trump up by 20-30 percent over Haley, and the actual margin was closer to 12%.

This anomaly makes it difficult to analyze the results of New Hampshire to predict future primary election results in upcoming states like South Carolina and Nevada. The Southern NH counties, which tend to be more Liberal, were within the 10-15% range for Trump, and Haley actually won the Western Strafford county. The Northern Coos county, which tends to be more traditionally Conservative, gave Trump a 30% margin.

The write-in victory for Biden and the Independent votes for Trump shows the power of the Democrat machine. The Republicans will not only have to beat Biden at the ballot box in November but simultaneously fight off the Leftist ground game. It will be a battle for Trump and the Republicans to win, but the stakes require our best effort.

 

The post NH Shows Power Of The Democrat Machine appeared first on Granite Grok.

The New Hampshire primary has come and gone – well, not quite gone. I’m sure we’ll have a few messes in Aisle 5, but the counting is about as over as it’s going to be, and we have results we’re meant to accept as legitimate.

Donald Trump won with over 50% of the vote. That was what everyone was predicting. Haley, however, managed 43%, which was higher than expected (results are not final).

 

DONALD TRUMP Republican RACE NOT CALLED	163,700	54.55%
NIKKI HALEY Republican	129,646	43.20%
RON DESANTIS Republican	2,046	0.68%
CHRIS CHRISTIE Republican	1,270	0.42%
TOTAL WRITE-INS Republican	1,061	0.35%
VIVEK RAMASWAMY Republican	687	0.23%
MIKE PENCE Republican	353	0.12%
RYAN BINKLEY Republican	265	0.09%
MARY MAXWELL Republican	243	0.08%

 

On the other side, nearly half of NH Democrats did not support the write-in Biden campaign. And yes, the 14% of unprocessed write-ins could be ‘Cease Fire.‘

 

JOE BIDEN (WRITE-IN) Democrat RACE NOT CALLED	54,570	51.50%
DEAN PHILLIPS Democrat	20,976	19.80%
UNPROCESSED WRITE-IN Democrat	14,967	14.13%
OTHER WRITE-INS Democrat	6,583	6.21%
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON Democrat	5,016	4.73%
DEREK NADEAU Democrat	1,180	1.11%
VERMIN SUPREME Democrat	639	0.60%
JOHN VAIL Democrat	506	0.48%
DONALD PICARD Democrat	272	0.26%
PAPERBOY PRINCE Democrat	220	0.21%
MARK GREENSTEIN Democrat	202	0.19%

We will be providing more analysis of this as the week progresses, including balancing these results against the guests we spoke to on Radio Row. For now, the quick take is this. Trump’s train is still rolling. Haley looked better here, getting more of the anyone but Trump vote but she’s not likely to find similar success as we move down the primary calendar.

As for Biden, he skipped New Hampshire, created problems for his supporters here, and nearly 50% of them took Dean Phillip’s advice (I think it was Dean). Biden wrote you off, so why would you write him in? Incumbents typically get 80%. Biden barely broke 505.

The post New Hampshire Primary Election Results – Trump Wins with 55% of the Vote, Dems Diss Biden! appeared first on Granite Grok.