Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
9 comments:
Served you right, GOP. That's what they get when they take their base for granted. There is no real difference between the GOP and the dems on immigration, and until the GOP grows some balls and is willing to endure the "evil raciss" epithet by restricting and reversing the invasion, they deserve to lose.
Right winger George Allen was running ads in NoVa accusing Kaine of a) cutting education spending, as governor and b) supporting cuts in defense spending. So basically it was a big govt Bush conservative vs. a smaller govt Democrat. Hard to be sorry that Allen lost.
The GOP seems to like fielding losers ...
macaca george allen?
Yup.
Romney and the Republican leadership obviously don't read isteve or vdare, and obviously don't understand waht Steve has been banging on about for the past decade (at least).
'Tis a pity - I would have loved them to have read some of *my* choice postings.
Ok, let's do the math. According to the numbers I'm seeing this morning, Romney got 58% of white voters, who were 72% of the electorate, for a total of 48.66M votes. He lost by 2.6M votes. So if he could have raised his percentage of the white vote to 61%, he would have won -- and that's assuming he's picking up third party voters and non-voters, not taking away votes from Obama. Just 3% more white voters for Romney would have turned the election.
Hispanics were 10% of the electorate, for a total of 11.65M votes. To get the same 2.6M extra votes from them, Romney would have to raise his share of the Hispanic vote from 29% to 51%.
Does anyone anywhere think that's possible? And without losing another percentage point or two of white voters? Just for the sake of argument, imagine that attempting Jeb Bush levels of Hispandering drops the GOP's share of the white vote to 56%. Now they need something like 70% of the Hispanic vote to make up the loss! Where does the stupidity end?
(Yes, I know this is simplistic. The point is you can get a bucket of water a lot faster from a lake hose than from a puddle. And since only a few states are really in play, Romney wouldn't have to increase the white vote even that much -- just bumping it up a few percentage points in a few states would be enough.)
If there's one thing we should learn from this election (and the last few), it's that non-whites cannot be wooed by the GOP in the current climate of affirmative action and other benefits for being non-white. Democrats will always have the upper hand in that area, and if Republicans ever get it, it will be because they've changed sides, and we'll have some other "conservative" party taking their place.
It doesn't matter whether the non-whites in question are smart or dumb, rich or poor, home-grown or immigrant, Central/South American or Asian, white collar, blue collar, or striped collar. It doesn't even matter whether they hate each other. They will vote as a block against anything that threatens to limit their advantages. There's zero evidence that they can be swayed to do otherwise, and no one who's screaming about "Latino outreach" has any idea how to do that beyond the Hispandering methods that have failed already.
Any party that intends to implement any level of fiscal sensibility, or control the borders even half-heartedly, or be tough on crime, or expect people to pay for their own mistakes, will not get non-white votes. We need to accept that. By all means, keep a hand extended to the minority of them who put the country ahead of their group's interests, but stop thinking there's a way to bring them en-masse over to the side of righteousness, so we can pat ourselves on the back about how inclusive we are. It won't happen, period.
If there's one thing we should learn from this election (and the last few), it's that non-whites cannot be wooed by the GOP in the current climate of affirmative action and other benefits for being non-white.
Ive looked back as far as I can and all non-whites vote pro-Dem as far back as you can check.
but stop thinking there's a way to bring them en-masse over to the side of righteousness, so we can pat ourselves on the back about how inclusive we are
Exactly.
Even buying into 'inclusiveness', whatever the hell thats supposed to actually mean, is adopting an enemy meme.
Served you right, GOP. That's what they get when they take their base for granted. There is no real difference between the GOP and the dems on immigration, and until the GOP grows some balls and is willing to endure the "evil raciss" epithet by restricting and reversing the invasion, they deserve to lose.
So what you are saying is, "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
If you actually think that the re-election of President Amnesty will result, somewhere down the line, in the GOP becoming more anti-immigrant, then you're the sort of stupid person whose existence explains the fall of America.
Post a Comment