August 20, 2016

"What do you have to lose?"

Trump argument in the form of a question to black voters.

It's memorable and outrageous and irritating enough to tempt opponents into a place they may end up not liking.

191 comments:

AprilApple said...

Only Democrats and the Corrupt Democrat media are allowed to refer to black American's as "They".

David Begley said...

If Trump can just pull 5% more of the Black vote and the Black vote doesn't turn out at historic levels like it did for Obama, then it might make a difference.

His black supporters on You Tube - Diamond and Silk - shows that the audience is there.

AprilApple said...

Is Trump wrong? No. Democrats use blacks and keep them down for a reason.

Humperdink said...

"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose." (Noted philosopher Bob Dylan)

And they got nuthin'.

Martha said...

They could lose Welfare checks, food stamps, affirmative action, abortion on demand —lots of goodies that seem attractive short term but lead to nowhere.

mezzrow said...

What he said is racist because he was in a stuffy room full of white people in a white people's place.

That's what I got out of the article. NBC News on the job.

AReasonableMan said...

"What have you got to lose?"

Health insurance?

William said...

This "you have nothing to lose but your chains" proposition doesn't take into account that we, here in this fifty shades of gray world, have an emotional almost erotic attachment to our chains.

AprilApple said...

Progressives are animated by the universally bad idea that the government should tax you and force its health care upon you - for your own good.
Care will be rationed, expensive, and it will suck - but it will be *free*.

Better vote for the corruptocrats - or those evil rethuglicans will take away your health care. It's a *big lie* - (it's really the opposite), but hey- it's a universal truth for those who buy the Gruber.

tcrosse said...

Kudos to Trump for a brilliant rhetorical question. Like all rhetorical questions, it might be very uncomfortable to answer.

Bob Boyd said...

Seems like a fair question.

The Republican party took their voters for granted and they got burned.

The Democratic party takes the Black vote for granted. Wouldn't it be better to burn the entitled Democrat politicians than to burn their own neighborhoods?

rehajm said...

"What have you got to lose?"

Health insurance?


They're going to lose that to the economics of bad policy from Democrats.

Gusty Winds said...

Let's pretend that elite liberals in Madison actually cared about inner city African Americans in Milwaukee. Then, there might be something to lose.

But the don't care. And the desperate state of inner city communities keeps the black vote right where white liberals want it.

Trump is right. That's why his question to African American voters sounds annoying to some...

damikesc said...

He's not wrong. If their plight in life is terrible, after decades of near-total fealty to Democrats, what will they lose trying something different? As it stands, nobody cares what blacks want because their vote couldn't be less up for grabs than it is.

"What have you got to lose?"

Health insurance?


Obamacare's death spiral is in full effect. If hey get it through Obamacare...they'll lose it anyway.

Kate said...

I've seen the sophisticated Lefties roll their eyes at Trump's bigotry, crassness and racism in this speech. I'm quite fascinated to see if the Left's elites are as clueless as the Right's were about what the Little People think of Trump.

machine said...

um...all your voting rights.

Ann Althouse said...

Some of you are illustrating my point.

If his opponents are provoked into answering the question, they will end up saying things that will be a problem.

Martha wrote: "They could lose Welfare checks, food stamps, affirmative action, abortion on demand —lots of goodies that seem attractive short term but lead to nowhere." That sounds like something a nonDemocrat would say sarcastically.

But an actual Trump opponent wouldn't say that. Note that it's not just a matter of winning the people Trump is ostensibly talking to but influencing other people. Any niche-marketing to the poor is also heard by the middle class. And I don't know what happens when you purport to address black people and what you're saying is, basically: You are poor.

Hagar said...

Condoleezza said her father became a Republican because the local Republican chairman would register him to vote and the Democrat would not.

When the Democrats say "we" will fight for you, etc., and you buy into that, you also immedately concede your power to them.

The Republicans should say, "Hey, register as Republicans and fight for yourselves. It's OK that you don't agree with us on everything."

traditionalguy said...

...nothing except your chains.

Trump's problem may be with the assumption that most unemployed young men in the inner city want to work all day long.

But he is saying to unemployed men, " Are you desperate enough yet to go through the pain to change your minds?" And that message is being heard by everybody threatened by unemployment.

Who will vote Trump-Republican? Coal miners will. Auto workers will. Mexican immigrants will., But alas, single women will not.

Gahrie said...

um...all your voting rights.

It was the Republicans who passed the Amendment that gave Blacks the right to vote, and it was the Democrats who passed laws that made it impossible for Blacks to vote.

Study a little history.

Every Democrat minority Congressman was elected from a gerrymandered safe district. Every Republican minority Congressman was elected from a majority White district.

n.n said...

The question addresses individual dignity, not class diversity. The same question is posed to all Americans.

Birkel said...

I do not understand the comments that refer to "caring" from politicians.

Whether a politician cares is as useless a concept as one could possibly imagine when the results are disastrous. And the results of Leviathan are a disaster.

readering said...

Isn't what have you got to lose his basic anti-Hillary message?

Gahrie said...

They could lose Welfare checks, food stamps, affirmative action, abortion on demand —lots of goodies that seem attractive short term but lead to nowhere."

Prior to 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Republican. After 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Democrat.

How do you explain that if not FDR's New Deal and the arrival of government checks?

Who can argue that the Black community has flourished under the War on Poverty? By every metric, things have gotten worse for the Black community ever since they sold their souls and their votes to the Democratic Party.

sunsong said...

I predict that blacks will vote for Hillary :-)

n.n said...

And its corollary: What do you have to gain?

Economic revitalization. Affordable health care. Wealth, not progressive debt. Equal protection, not selective exclusion. Pro-native policies, here, there, everywhere. Curbing social justice adventurism, mass abortions, rape-rape cultures, refugee crises. Justice by trial, not assassination. Right to self-defense. Perhaps an alternative to abortion rites and other Pro-Choice religious policies.

traditionalguy said...

Trump has hit a winner here. Hillary lost to Obama because she was just Bill Jeff's, the Southern Pay For Play Governor's, wife against the history of repression of black men. She lost.

Now Trump is the NYC values, fair Scotsman, who is offering the repressed black men another way to freedom from Willim Fulbright taught racial plantation life under Massa Clinton.

Who will they trust in a secret ballot?

EDH said...

"Black leaders" who "deliver" votes to Democrats have a lot to loose.

But that's not who Trump was asking the question.

cyrus83 said...

Seeing as the unrestricted immigration is the plan of the Democrats, blacks stand to lose a lot. On the one hand, immigrants compete with poor blacks to find and hold jobs and also act to keep the wages of unskilled labor low. On the other hand, as many immigrants require public assistance, it hastens the inevitable crash of the welfare state and threatens all those assistance programs the Democrats have built in the last 50 years.

machine said...

oh I see...this fantasyland still pretends the parties didn't switch.

party of Lincoln and all that...pretending is fun.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Some people are starting to recognize the patronizing nature of liberals.

The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal

I have three female friends who are all self-described liberals. One spends time each week volunteering at the downtown Milwaukee Central library teaching adults how to read. Another spends a great deal of her professional time doing home visits in the inner city working with children with hearing deficits and their parent(s).

The third teaches at the elite University School, does her grocery shopping at Outpost in Mequon and Pick-n-Save in Grafton, and lives in Cedarburg. She'll tell you she wishes Cedarburg were more diverse than it is, and she means it right up until you challenge her to do her grocery shopping at the Pick-n-Save in far more culturally diverse Brown Deer.

Crazy Jane said...


African American leaders really seem to believe that Republicans are racists who want to keep people down. Republicans seem to believe that African Americans will never be dislodged from the Democratic base. (Remember LBJ after passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the mid 1960s: "I'll have those n-----s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Pretty awful sentiment, that.)

In other democracies, small groups play the major parties against each other (think Likud in Israel) and have outsized effects on public policy. If the Republicans were smart (and I'm not saying they are) they might try to offer African Americans something better than the inner city ghettos that the Democrats have provided.

Fabi said...

Just last week the NeverTrump whiners were whining that Trump needed to ask people for their votes! Oops.

Hagar said...

If you don't like the way your local schools are being run, Republicans will tend to think that is a local problem, and if you have the local votes you can get something done about it.

It is the Democrats who insist that in return for their "fighting for you," you must go along and support their fashionable ideology of the moment without exception.

A good example is "the transgender issue." I don't think you can point to a community anywhere where that would have come up by itself and being passed by the local city council or county commission.

Hagar said...

(Remember LBJ after passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the mid 1960s: "I'll have those n-----s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Pretty awful sentiment, that.)

Is there actual evidence for that? It does not sound like LBJ.
What does sound like him is a quote about the White southerners not voting Democrat for a long time, i.e. losing the "Solid South," of which he had been a notable member in Congress.

Gahrie said...

If the Republicans were smart (and I'm not saying they are) they might try to offer African Americans something better than the inner city ghettos that the Democrats have provided.

The Republicans have to be offered the power to do so first....those innercity ghettos have been ruled by the democratic Party for generations.

Trump was making the offer that if the Black community votes for him and the Republicans that he will improve their lives.

But the Black community must restore the institutions of church and family for anything to work.........two things the Republicans support and the Democrats are trying to destroy.

His next speech should contain the line: "The Republican Party and I will change the welfare rules so that instead of punishing a family if the father is in the home, it will reward the family if the father is in the home."

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger machine said...
oh I see...this fantasyland still pretends the parties didn't switch."

The Dems didn't switch. They still have the blacks on the plantation. They just figured out that if they tossed the blacks crumbs from the table instead of imposing Jim Crow laws, the blacks would willingly embrace their chains. Hell, the blacks are even fighting to reintroduce segregation on college campuses.

The shade of Bull Connor (a good Democrat) smiles approvingly.

Gahrie said...

oh I see...this fantasyland still pretends the parties didn't switch.

That is because they didn't. What switched was the location of the plantations, from the deep South to the inner city.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The third teaches at the elite University School, does her grocery shopping at Outpost in Mequon and Pick-n-Save in Grafton, and lives in Cedarburg. She'll tell you she wishes Cedarburg were more diverse than it is, and she means it right up until you challenge her to do her grocery shopping at the Pick-n-Save in far more culturally diverse Brown Deer."

I live in lily white Shorewood. I know many liberals like the ones you describe. I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood in Bay View. The Northsiders have always tended to look down on the white working class South Side. The block I grew up on is now far more racially mixed than Shorewood. If a black guy walked though this neighborhood after dark, all those liberal North Shore Nancies would think he was casing their homes.

Gahrie said...

hey just figured out that if they tossed the blacks crumbs from the table instead of imposing Jim Crow laws, the blacks would willingly embrace their chains.

The saddest thing about the state of the Black community today is that their problems aren't caused by racists...they are doing it to themselves.

No White racist is forcing Black women to abort their children.

No White racist is forcing Black men to father illegitimate children.

No White racist is the cause of the fact that 75% of Black children are born to single mothers. (the single largest cause of poverty today besides illegal immigration)

No White racist is forcing young Black men to prey on the Black community.

White racists aren't running the failing schools.

White racists didn't invent thug culture and acting White.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why shouldn't this work, to peel off some of the Black vote? Sure, Blacks have voted Dem for quite awhile, and have a lot of bad things as a result. And, instead of protecting Blacks, Dems are backing increased immigration of Hispanics and Muzzies to take what few jobs are left. And, Trump's TV show was somewhat popular with Blacks. Moreover, his bravado is appreciated by many Blacks. Much more appealing than Crooked Hillary. What does she have to offer them, besides more freebies, and a diminished place at the table for their Black leadership (who get to send their kids to the same schools as their White masters do)? I don't expect a lot of Black Trump votes, but would be quite surprised if he didn't do better than either Romney or McCain with that demographic. At a minimum, I don't expect nearly the same Black Dem turnout that Obama got - she has nothing to excite them, like he did. We shall see.

Gahrie said...

And I don't know what happens when you purport to address black people and what you're saying is, basically: You are poor.

Trump isn't telling the Black community that it is poor....he is telling them that they are poor because they have sold their own best interests out to the Democrats and big government.

It is a hell of a tough sell though...."Vote for me and I'll give you free stuff" is a lot more successful than 'Vote for me, and I'll help you go to work".

Bruce Hayden said...

@Gahrie - maybe white racists aren't forcing these things, but there is an economic truism that if you want more of something, you incentivize it, and penalize it if you want less. Starting with LBJ's War on Poverty, welfare has tended to subsidize fatherless child rearing. The Gingrich Congress forced Welfare Reform on Bill Clinton to combat this, but Obama waived many of the work rules implemented by that legislation in the name of compassion and fighting the recession named after him. As long as women can raise their children without having a father present better economically than with, a lot of them will take that route (and ignore that their boys are more likely to end up in prison or dead, and their daughters end up following them with Baby Daddies instead of husbands and fathers).

JPS said...

Gahrie,

"Prior to 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Republican. After 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Democrat.

"How do you explain that if not FDR's New Deal and the arrival of government checks?"

I'll take a stab, even if I'm not convinced of the case I'm making. For some, sure, it's been about the money. For others, the money is merely a marker of an activist government, which FDR helped to usher in - and it's the activist government that's been the vehicle to a fairer society. (I hate to even type that, but there's some truth to it.)

If you're a minority and you've faced terrible discrimination, which looks easier? To gain control of, or at least fair access to, the government? Or to get a fair shake throughout a society still permeated (I'm talking 1932 here) with racism, formal and informal? With the deck stacked against you in all sorts of unwritten ways?

I've been wondering this because I know lots of black folks who are nothing like the stereotypical wards of government: Upper-middle-class, educated, devoted moms and dads still married, pulling hard to set their kids up for every success in life. And every blessed one of them is a political liberal. And I've been trying to think why this should be, other than explanations like (a) they're idiots (they're not) or (b) they're being conned by liberals who don't give a damn about them (they are not gullible in any other respect).

And I think it comes down to this: If the government is willing to write itself rules guaranteeing a fair shake, and publicly at least give lip service to them, then minorities have leverage and recourse with it that they don't believe they'd have in the private sector.

Clark said...

@Hagar — There is some good discussion relating to your question on reddit from two years ago.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...


When Trump insults the black community first by telling them they have "nothing to lose" because they have nothing to begin with, sure they will all just jump aboard the Trump train and take their chances. Trump insults blacks by asking for the black vote in West Bend a 99% white community, when he was just 30 miles away and could've not cancelled his earlier speech in Milwaukee that same day. Then Trump does it again in Michigan a few days later. Why doesn't he go into the black community to ask them for their vote?

Hagar said...

A little more believable quote from Bill Moyers' book:
""I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come."

The other quote referred to above apparently has no substantiation at all.

mockturtle said...

Some who will lose: Corrupt black politicians who are on the payrolls of corrupt city governments.

Bob Boyd said...

What's The Matter With Wisconsin?

"Wisconsin is where European social democracy came closest to happening in America. But it’s also where the welfare state and African-Americans interacted most disastrously.
In his 1895 “Cast down your buckets where you are” speech, black leader Booker T. Washington famously called for American industrialists to hire black Americans rather than white immigrants.
For two decades, Northern factory owners paid little attention to Washington’s plea for patriotic solidarity. But World War I and the immigration restriction laws passed by Congress in 1921 and 1924 set off a golden age of black advancement as the most industrious Southern blacks traded in cotton picking in the South for a better life of assembly-line work in the North.
For a half century this worked rather well, until liberal overconfidence led to increased welfare in Northern states in the 1960s. This attracted less enterprising Southern blacks and encouraged Northern black families to revert back to African domestic patterns in which the women provide for the children and the men don’t work.
Initially, Wisconsin lagged behind Illinois in boosting Aid for Families with Dependent Children handouts. In 1970, Wisconsin paid only the national average of $184 per month per family of three, while Chicago lavished $232 on welfare mothers. But both were a lot more attractive than the $56 paid by the state of Mississippi.
During the 1970s, however, Chicago’s cynical Irish Democratic political leadership grew tired of attracting the laziest people in Mississippi and boosted AFDC payments to only $342 by 1985. In contrast, the more idealistic politicians of Wisconsin—during the McGovern era, the state was led by a formidable trio of liberal Democrats, Governor Patrick Lucey and Senators William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson—raised welfare to $533. This generosity with the taxpayers’ money sucked in the dregs of Mississippi.
Combined with the state’s industry being outsourced to China, this heritage has left even the more diligent Wisconsin blacks with little legal work to do.

One lesson to be learned from Wisconsin’s sorry history is that poor selection of newcomers can have negative ramifications for generations. We like to hope that migrants will assimilate to our higher standards, but it often turns out that they just drag us down to theirs.
Thus, in 2016, Milwaukee is still being looted and burned by the grandchildren of the welfare mothers attracted to the city by the liberal misconception of the 1970s. Wisconsin’s disillusioning history with migrants might well have implications for national immigration policy in 2016"

Read the whole thing:
http://takimag.com/article/whats_the_matter_with_wisconsin_steve_sailer#axzz4HpUcBOQ9

mockturtle said...

BTW, I know quite a few blacks who are voting for Trump but they were already supporters. They are spreading the message on social media: The Democrats take our votes for granted.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"When Trump insults the black community first by telling them they have "nothing to lose" because they have nothing to begin with, sure they will all just jump aboard the Trump train and take their chances."

Once again, the bonehead Inga/Unknown knocks over all the chess pieces, shits on the board, and declares victory. Nobody believes "they will all just jump aboard the Trump train." Trump is trying to make a dent in black voting patterns, because even a dent will significantly harm Hill's chances.

"Trump insults blacks by asking for the black vote in West Bend a 99% white community, when he was just 30 miles away and could've not cancelled his earlier speech in Milwaukee that same day."

He tried to speak in Chicago earlier this year and the BLM thugs launched a violent protest. If he had spoke in Milwaukee and violence broke out outside the venue, you would, predictably, be blaming him for that.

Just as you mindles toadies are criticizing him for showing up in LA and "interfering" with relief efforts, even though Bush was criticized for not visiting New Orleans after Katrina. That showed Bush didn't care, but it's perfectly alright for Sir Golfsalot to continue partying on Martha's Vineyard with the one percent, while Madame Pantsuit is nowhere to be found.

Let's face it, anything Trump does or doesn't do will be criticized by you, because you are a hopeless tool and serf.

Gahrie said...

trump's base are people the republican Party took for granted...wouldn't it be cool if Trump won because of people the Democrats took for granted?

mockturtle said...

Very well said, exiledonmainstreet!

Hagar said...

BTW, it bears repeating once more that LBJ's masterpiece maneuver to pass the Civil Rights Acts was to get the Republican minorities in Congress to join with Hubert Humphrey's northern liberals to vote them in, while talking his southern allies in the Senate out of blocking the votes.

Bob Boyd said...

"...wouldn't it be cool if Trump won because of people the Democrats took for granted?"

It sure would.

"Pundits say Trump has destroyed the Republican party. I say that’s one party down, one to go. The job is only half done." – Scott Adams

Gahrie said...

maybe white racists aren't forcing these things, but there is an economic truism that if you want more of something, you incentivize it, and penalize it if you want less. Starting with LBJ's War on Poverty, welfare has tended to subsidize fatherless child rearing.

Oh I agree...in fact I think it is the major cause of Black poverty and lawlessness today.

.... As long as women can raise their children without having a father present better economically than with, a lot of them will take that route (and ignore that their boys are more likely to end up in prison or dead, and their daughters end up following them with Baby Daddies instead of husbands and fathers).

I also agree.....which is why I propose changing the welfare laws 180 degrees to reward families with a father in the home rather than punish them.

Unknown said...

How can Trump believe that the black community will vote for him after he was the driver of the Obama is a Kenyan crazy bus. Trump should just continue asking the black community to vote for him by insulting them first, works every time. Maybe he can get his percentage down to .5 of the black vote by November. Trump might suggest once again that there will be voter "cheating" going on in "certain parts" of the city, if he loses.

mtrobertslaw said...

"Prior to 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Republican. After 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Democratic."

Is there any rational argument out there that claims that inner-city Blacks in 2016 are better off than Blacks living in Black neighborhoods before 1932?

Gahrie said...

Trump should just continue asking the black community to vote for him by insulting them first,

When did a simple statement of truth become an insult?

Martha said...


Althouse:
Martha wrote: "They could lose Welfare checks, food stamps, affirmative action, abortion on demand —lots of goodies that seem attractive short term but lead to nowhere." That sounds like something a nonDemocrat would say sarcastically.

I did not mean that post sarcastically. When you know no other way of life, have been educated in failing schools, raised in a fatherless jobless homes, then "freebies" from the government are all you have. Trump is asking those very people to take a chance on him. When Bill Clinton was elected no one thought he would end welfare as we knew it. Trump will end welfare and a lot of other things as we know it. That might scare those who think they do have something to lose—not just Blacks.

damikesc said...

um...all your voting rights.

Republicans did more for them than Democrats did.

oh I see...this fantasyland still pretends the parties didn't switch.

Given that almost all of the segregationists remained Democrats to the end, the "switching" of the parties seems to be devoid of actual evidence.

If you're a minority and you've faced terrible discrimination, which looks easier? To gain control of, or at least fair access to, the government? Or to get a fair shake throughout a society still permeated (I'm talking 1932 here) with racism, formal and informal? With the deck stacked against you in all sorts of unwritten ways?

That is no doubt part of it...but it is odd since most of the segregation was government policy. Montgomery buses, for example, didn't CHOOSE to force blacks to the back. The government required it.

And I love hearing about the Trump Birther stuff since the originator of it is his opponent.

Hagar said...

Iirc, from Caro's books on LBJ, the way LBJ got the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 through the Senate was by promising Senator Byrd - Harry Bird, not Robert - that in return, he would submit a balanced budget. Times had changed, and for Byrd fiscal sanity had become more important than continuing the Civil War.

I wonder about the quick and easy statement above. A lot of the Democrat resentment of Johnson is because they thought that by losing them "the Solid South," he had lost them control of Congress. I think it took a while before it dawned on them that "the Solid Black Vote" would serve them just as well.

Sebastian said...

"But an actual Trump opponent wouldn't say that" Not in those terms, but pretty close, or worse. Fear-mongering is their MO. Remember Biden, they gonna put you back in chains?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

When I was in high school, the Billy Joel song "Only the Good Die Young" was popular. I thought it very ugly in many ways.

I said to a friend of mine, a girl, that I thought that it was extraordinarily stupid that Billy Joel (because he's singing as if he's addressing Virginia, directly) would think that a girl would find it appealing to be told that she's going to get laid, eventually, so he "might as well be the one."

Imagine how it hit naive little me when she replied, "Oh, no, lots of guys try that."

cubanbob said...

Hagar said...
BTW, it bears repeating once more that LBJ's masterpiece maneuver to pass the Civil Rights Acts was to get the Republican minorities in Congress to join with Hubert Humphrey's northern liberals to vote them in, while talking his southern allies in the Senate out of blocking the votes.

8/20/16, 11:43 AM"

But for LBJ's intransigence the Civil Rights Act could have passed in 1957 but then the Republicans would have had the glory.

Fabi said...

The style guide says: DNC Member Bull Connor.

Hagar said...

No way, Jose,
It was a narrow squeak in 1964 and could never have happened in 1957.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Trump insults blacks by asking for the black vote in West Bend a 99% white community, when he was just 30 miles away and could've not cancelled his earlier speech in Milwaukee that same day.

I don't know why you persist in thinking that Trump skipped out of being in Milwaukee that day. Here he is, in the Pabst Theater, in MILWAUKEE.

Now it's your turn. Please provide a link to Hillary's speech in Milwaukee that day where she addresses the riot.

Unknown said...

Thanks for posting that Michael the M! Why the heck wasn't it all over the news? Why didn't he ask for the black vote right there on that stage in front of Hannity? Strange.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
"What have you got to lose?"

"Health insurance?"

Oddly enough there are as many uninsured today as there were before this fiasco was implimented. Something you said wasn't going to happen. And oddly enough insurance companies are bailing at a repid rate. Something the intelligebt people told you would happen.


Terry said...

"How can Trump believe that the black community will vote for him after he was the driver of the Obama is a Kenyan crazy bus."
Once again, 'Unknown' accuses Trump of doing something Hillary did first.
Next 'Unknown' will point out that Trump has been involved in land deals that ripped off investors.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Gahrie - there is another adage conservatives believe their opponents to be naive, while progressives believe their opponents to be evil. And you can see this latter in action, when they accuse their opponents, including every Republican nominee since at least George W Bush, of being Hitler, a Nazi, a racist, a Klan sympathizer (despite the Klan being the militant wing of the Dem party), etc. but, for me, it isn't accurate. Sure, I see the Crooked Hillary shills and sympathizers as mostly being naive. They mostly don't realize that they are the useful dopes that Lenin spoke of. But there is a certain proportion at the top who understand what they are doing, and do it anyway, for the money and the power, or just don't care, and I consider them evil. Here, I start with LBJ and that quote about Ni**ers. But I also include prominently the Clintons, George Sorros, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, probably Paul Krugman, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. I give the benefit of the doubt to President Obama, who may not be smart enough, or well enough educated (partially, probably, because he probably went through HS and college stoned). Pretty much any politician who has climbed onto the BLM bandwagon would fit into this category (and esp vile is Sorros for cynically funding the movement). The one person I would put in both categories is Nancy Pelosi, who is dumb as a rock, but does what she does for political power and money.

Gahrie said...

Strange.

Almost as strange as a candidate for president not having a press conference for well over 200 days.

But not nearly as strange as the MSM allowing a candidate for president to run for office without holding a press conference for well over 200 days without attacking that candidate.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" A lot of the Democrat resentment of Johnson is because they thought that by losing them "the Solid South," he had lost them control of Congress."

But the idea that the South switched over the GOP en masse in 1968 because of the Civil Rights Act is incorrect. In 1968, the Deep South voted for Wallace, who ran as an Independent. Texas voted for Humphrey. In 1972, Nixon won in a landslide that included the North as well as the South. In 1976, the South voted for its native son, Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Reagan won most of the States - but not Georgia. In 1984- a 49 state Reagan blowout. In 1988, the South went for Bush I, but so did Pennsylvania and Maine. In 1992, Clinton won Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. 1996: Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee voted for Clinton. It was only in 2000 that the GOP candidate won the entire South (and that was the start of the virulent hatred of all things Southern that we see on the left today.)

On the state and local level, the South remained majority Democrat until 1994. The South had been so solidly Democrat for so long, it took decades to build up a GOP party infrastructure.

Leftists love to accuse the South of turning Republican because of racism. If that is the case, they sure took their own sweet time doing it.

What's interesting is that black migration back to the South has increased as the South has become more Republican. All those blacks might still be solid Democrats, but they don't seem to be afraid of moving to red states and living among all those crackas, whereas during the Jim Crow era, leaving the completely Democrat South for the north was a smart move.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Thanks for posting that Michael the M! Why the heck wasn't it all over the news? "

Ask your friends in the media, moron.

poker1one said...

machine wrote:

"oh I see...this fantasyland still pretends the parties didn't switch.

party of Lincoln and all that...pretending is fun.
"

What switch? Where in history do you find evidence of a big switch? Were the Kennedys Republican first than switched to Democrat? When Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Native American, switched from Democrat to Republican was that part of the big switch? Bill Buckley? Did the Daley machine suddenly re-register when I wasn't looking? Was Franklin Roosevelt a Democrat or Republican before the switch? Dig up some facts and let us know, cite sources, do some reading, educate us. Here's a tip, Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here's a fact: Democrats have been the party of segregation for over a hundred and fifty years. Here's another fact: You can't disprove it.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Democrats keep people beggars cause beggars are dependent and easier to please.

Paul Zrimsek said...

You can tell it's a good point just from the fact that NBC found it necessary to remind us that Trump was reading off a teleprompter.

Unknown said...

Not a black face In that entire audience in Milwaukee.

Jupiter said...

Has it ever crossed anybody's mind that maybe the majority of black people *like* having EBT cards and illegitimate children and free abortions and obamaphones and gangs and drugs and that hideous hate-rant they call "rap music"? That's their idea of a good time. That's how they're wired. The men don't like getting shot and going to prison, and the women don't like getting beaten up all the time. But so what? I don't like getting up in the morning and going to work. It's the price I have to pay for the life I want to live. I'm not gonna change. And neither are they.

mockturtle said...

Jupiter, there are more whites than blacks on welfare/food stamps and having babies outside marriage. Are they 'wired that way'? Or have they grown up in a Godless, amoral, drug-infested culture where there are more incentives to take the dole than to work?

Bruce Hayden said...

Imagine how it hit naive little me when she replied, "Oh, no, lots of guys try that."

I live with that. My partner and I have been (mostly) together for 17 years now. But even during our early years, she was still getting propositions for marriage from guys she had just met. Esp bothersome were the times I would take her out somewhere, and they would wait until I left for the restroom to pounce. I do have the honor though of being the only guy that she has proposed to (but then she made me ask her son for permission - which he dragged out as long as he could, for the enjoyment of everyone else concerned). She looked a bit like Melania Trump when in her 30s and 40s, but with dimples when she smiles, and a lot more charisma. But gave up modeling to raise kids (Most of two decades before I met her). Pretty much every line I have tried with her has been tried before by a half dozen guys, at least. But by now, she knows I am partly joking, so they work. I think that we got together because I was the first guy in a long time who saw her for her mind, and not for her looks. Maybe. Or, (her view) maybe she just felt sorry for me.

Unknown said...

Souvenir stand outside of Trump event. Hmmm, maybe this might turn off some black people from supporting Trump, think?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Or have they grown up in a Godless, amoral, drug-infested culture where there are more incentives to take the dole than to work?

8/20/16, 1:12 PM

I think it was Thomas Sowell who pointed out that in the pre-civil rights era, black illegitimacy rates were lower than white ones(both were extremely low). It was difficult enough being black - why put your children at an even greater disadvantage? Sowell also said that the notion that fatherless families are somehow a legacy of slavery is an insult to the memory of thousands of ex-slaves who roamed the South after the Civil War desperately trying to find spouses and children who had been sold off to different owners. Historian Eugene Genovese has documented that and wrote that those broomstick weddings were taken very seriously by slaves, who strongly resisted the idea that they were to be bred like livestock.

The Great Society - the Democrats - killed the black family.

Bruce Hayden said...

What the left studiously ignore in their claim that the parties have switched roles when it comes to racism is that the Republican Party has never approved of, nor condoned, racism or racists. The Dems were lionizing former Klan Grand Kleegle Bob Byrd years after a Republican Senator lost his party leadership position for saying something innocuously nice at a service for a former colleague who had been a Democrat when he had been a segregationist. All the famous segregationists were prominent Democrats, from Woodrw Wilson through Bull Conyors and George Wallace. Sure, a couple of fringe Klan and Nazis have switched parties, and registered Republcans can, but they are inevitably never allowed higher office as a Republican.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, Unknown, I would think that having the father of a mass murderer and Taliban supporter seated behind Madame Pantsuit at a rally, with said Taliban supporter proclaiming his support for her and hatred of Trump might turn off people from supporting Pantsuit. You know, as long as we are playing guilt by association.

Using your line of reasoning, you support the Taliban and approve of mass murder because you're a Hillary shill and Dem tool.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yeah, this bothers me a hell of a lot more than some woman with a Confederate flag:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/father-orlando-shooter-attends-clinton-rally-touts-candidate.html

AReasonableMan said...

Delusion -
Rusty said...
Oddly enough there are as many uninsured today as there were before this fiasco was implimented.


and
Reality:

Bruce Hayden said...

Ask yourself this, how can someone be proud of calling themselves a member of, and supporting candidates of, the virtue signaling party, the Democratic Party, knowing that it was the party of Andrew Jackson and the Trail of tears, founded by slave owners, opposing the emancipation of the slaves during the civil war, the party of Jim Crow, lynchings, and the Klan, the resegregation of the govt under Wilson, main opposers of the modern Civil Rights laws, and the continued subjugation of Blacks through welfare and Affirmative Action? The answe is the false narrative that the parties have reversed places, and the Dems have somehow, magically, taken over the righteous mantle of the Republicans. That way they don't have to atone for their past ills and crimes, but instead can call on their opponents to do so for them. A severe case of cognitive dissonance, if there ever were one.

Hagar said...

It also took time for Johnson to become a non-person in the Democrat Party.

But if Kennedy had not been killed, the Civil Rights Acts would not have passed until well into the 1970's, would not have been as sweeping, and would have been signed by Presideent Richard M. Nixon.

Unknown said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291061-former-florida-rep-mark-foley-seated-behind-trump-at

Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley sits behind Trump at rally. Foley resigned from his position in 2006 amid allegations that he had sent sexual emails and messages to teenage boys who had worked or were working as congressional pages.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yeah, Unknown, that's just as bad as being a Taliban supporter and the father of a mass murderer. Really!!

You are not only a dupe, you're a dolt.

exiledonmainstreet said...

That way they don't have to atone for their past ills and crimes, but instead can call on their opponents to do so for them. A severe case of cognitive dissonance, if there ever were one"

Since when do leftists ever admit failure? Or admit past sins?

I believe that's one reason they hate Christianity so much. It calls for an examination of conscience. They don't have consciences and believe everything they do is wonderful. It's always someone else's fault.

machine said...

...and then the whole helping a minority get elected to the highest office in the world...twice.

and now Madame President.


or switch to the Hastert/Foley old pedo white guy party...a lot to lose.

walter said...

AReasonableMan said...
"What have you got to lose?"
Health insurance?
--
How many are being dumped into medicaid? An already strained system with ever more providers opting out from.
But then..Pelo/Reid Care-lessness was designed to fail. Just have to live with collateral damage as the saga unfolds.

But hil carries hot sauce in her purse...

How does it feel, how does it feel?
To be on your own, with no direction home
A complete unknown, like a rolling stone

Unknown said...

He was not invited to the rally and Clinton immediately denounced him and his "support". When will Trump denounce the racists in every one of his rallies and the ones hawking their wares outside the event? Exiledonmaonstreeet, you are the quintessential Trump voter. The bile just drips from your lips. Maybe that is another reason the black community won't vote for Trump, because of people like you.

Robert Fulton said...

I signed on to AOL.COM today to read my email only to see a banner headline about the NYT (“major bombshell”) just-released study of Trump’s business dealings – which turns out to be a major nothing-burger.
I could ignore that and move on except that, in addition to the written Democratic propaganda there is an annoying voice-over plugin decrying the racial discrimination of Donald Trump (or is it religious discrimination? Or both?) which I cannot turn off using my Task Manager so I must go off-line and on again to get rid of it.
I have, of course, emailed them and complained. If they don’t stop (I don’t think they will) then I will have to change my email which I have maintained with aol since dial-up days. What is the matter with tech companies? Don’t they know that half of their customers do not share their political views?
I have read about similar activities of other tech companies and I know about yahoo.com, but is this universal?

Unknown said...

"I believe that's one reason they hate Christianity so much.....It's always someone else's fault.

Exiledonmaonstreet,
You are a very poor example of a Christian.

Jupiter said...

mockturtle said...
"Jupiter, there are more whites than blacks on welfare/food stamps and having babies outside marriage. Are they 'wired that way'? Or have they grown up in a Godless, amoral, drug-infested culture where there are more incentives to take the dole than to work?"

Both. They are wired that way, and the degeneracy of our government and culture make it easier to indulge their wiring. And neither of those factors is likely to get better. So, what's your point?

What I am saying is that we aren't going to wake up in five years and discover that the criminal black underclass has vanished, due to some combination of enlightened policies we just haven't hit upon yet. Won't happen. A reasonable person could believe it might, 50 years ago. Maybe even 30 years ago. No more. So it's not surprising that a substantial portion of the white populace is getting tired of being told that it's our fault black people are so destructive. You can keep feeling sorry for 'em as long as you like. I guess you're wired that way. But count me out.

Unknown said...

"It's always someone else's fault".

What will Trump blame his failures on? A "rigged" election? "Cheating" by voters in certain "areas" of large cities? The MSM? He's already making excuses.

walter said...

Unknown said... When will Trump denounce the racists in every one of his rallies and the ones hawking their wares outside the event?
--
Hmm..I saw a lot of in your face stuff about Hil' being sold..but nothing racist.
Is Hil 5% Native American or something?

mockturtle said...

Robert, I just contacted AOL the other day about their erroneous [not merely misleading] headlines but, other than their acknowledgment of receiving my email, I've not heard back. I've had AOL forever [yes, back to dial-up] but I can only put up with so much.

damikesc said...

Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley sits behind Trump at rally. Foley resigned from his position in 2006 amid allegations that he had sent sexual emails and messages to teenage boys who had worked or were working as congressional pages.

Being gay...killing gays. It's all the same, really.

He was not invited to the rally and Clinton immediately denounced him and his "support".

Where?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown, I don't claim to be a good Christian.

You're a poor example of a human. But then,so is your Fatassed Goddess.

Gahrie said...

Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley sits behind Trump at rally. Foley resigned from his position in 2006 amid allegations that he had sent sexual emails and messages to teenage boys who had worked or were working as congressional pages.

Democrat Gerry Studds was censured for having sex with a 17 year old male Congressional page, and was returned to Congress six more times. He was eventually appointed the chair of a Congressional committee by the Democrats.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"He was not invited to the rally and Clinton immediately denounced him and his "support".

Then the Dems can't even vet people who not only show up at their rallies but sit right behind their candidate. These are the same people who assure us that they're vetting the "refugees" they admit to this country.

machine said...

he didn't resign because he was gay.

Hastert knows why he resigned.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Democrat Gerry Studds was censured for having sex with a 17 year old male Congressional page, and was returned to Congress six more times. He was eventually appointed the chair of a Congressional committee by the Democrats.

8/20/16, 2:45 PM

See that's just it. For every "gotcha" that Unknown pulls out of her ass, we can come back with plenty of examples of the Dems doing even worse.

Not that she cares because she's a stupid serf, doing her mistresses bidding.

"Sit, Unknown!! Bark!! Bark just like Hillary!! Good girl!"

exiledonmainstreet said...

Democrat Gerry Studds was censured for having sex with a 17 year old male Congressional page, and was returned to Congress six more times. He was eventually appointed the chair of a Congressional committee by the Democrats.

8/20/16, 2:45 PM

Not to mention Barney Frank, whose boyfriend was running a whorehouse right out of his apartment in the 1980's. Not that there's much difference between the whoring the boyfriend was doing and the whoring Frank did in Congress everyday.

Unknown said...

Did the Trump campaign vet Rep.Mark Foley who was sitting behind him on stage at his rally?

mockturtle said...

@exiledonmainstreet Unknown, I don't claim to be a good Christian.

Unknown's ignorant bleatings aren't worth reading, much less responding to. It amazes me that so many non-Christians are experts on what constitutes Christianity when Jesus said:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16.

Gahrie said...

On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee recommended that Crane and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with teenagers, specifically a 17-year-old male page for Studds and a 17-year-old female page for Crane. Both men acknowledged the accuracy of the charges. Crane had sexual relations with the girl in 1980.[2] The full House voted to censure the two men.[1] Crane was defeated for re-election in 1984 and returned to dentistry.

Dan Crane was a Republican. Republicans always punish their own, Democrats never do.

Unknown said...

Exiledonmaonstreeet,

Why do you come across as a mean drunk? Isn't it a bit early to be drinking so heavily? Too much anabolic steroids, 'roid rage? Your "Christianity" is being displayed for all the internet to see. Praise the Lord!

Gahrie said...

Did the Trump campaign vet Rep.Mark Foley who was sitting behind him on stage at his rally?

Why was it wrong to have Foley on the stage? What did he do to make having him on stage a scandal? I've already provided an example of a Democrat who did the same thing and worse and was given a leadership position by the Democrats.

Unknown said...

"Unknown, I don't claim to be a good Christian."

Yet you have the nerve to accuse liberals and Democrats of being "Godless". Hypocrite.

Unknown said...

Mockturtle,

You too come across as a bible scripture spouting hypocrite. Your Christanity just shines. Praise Jesus!

Jupiter said...

"I have read about similar activities of other tech companies and I know about yahoo.com, but is this universal?"

Pretty much. Tech companies are run by people who just got out of college.

walter said...

Unknown..calling exhiled drunk, completely misunderstanding known tenets of Christianity.
Your flailing is just sad.

walter said...

Maybe there's some projection going on with the day drinking accusation..

Terry said...

Blogger Unknown said...
Did the Trump campaign vet Rep.Mark Foley who was sitting behind him on stage at his rally?

Hillary is married to a rapist, 'Unknown.'

Unknown said...

Maybe good white Christians can act as missionaries to the black heathens in the inner city and bring them to the Lord Trump through the gentle love of Christ and their Godliness.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
"Unknown, I don't claim to be a good Christian."

Yet you have the nerve to accuse liberals and Democrats of being "Godless". Hypocrite.

8/20/16, 2:59 PM

Where's the hypocrisy? No Christian I know goes around patting themselves on the back and saying "My, am I a good Christian! Why, I'm just perfect."

You liberals think that about yourselves though - that's why you consider your idiot selves qualified to run the lives of other people and tell them what to do.

Does John Kerry live without AC? Does Al Gore rough it and travel coach? Does Hillary care about following the law - no, that's for lesser folk.

And you have the nerve and the complete lack of self-awareness to call others hypocrites? Look in the mirror, you asskissing lover of a corrupt lawless and evil hag.

Gahrie said...

Maybe good white Christians can act as missionaries to the black heathens in the inner city and bring them to the Lord Trump through the gentle love of Christ and their Godliness.

I'd settle for some good Black Christians acting as missionaries in the inner city and teaching them some morality.

Gahrie said...

Yet you have the nerve to accuse liberals and Democrats of being "Godless

Remind me again which party booed the mention of God at their convention?

Unknown said...

Go have another beer MrExile and lay off the anabolic steroids for a while, just sayin'....

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Maybe good white Christians can act as missionaries to the black heathens in the inner city and bring them to the Lord Trump through the gentle love of Christ and their Godliness.

8/20/16, 3:06 PM

The blacks used to be solidly Christian, until the Great Society undermined the black family and made government their God and provider. So if you want to make amends for all the evil and harm your side has done to the blacks, for the ruin the Democrats have made of the inner cities, maybe you should be the one doing volunteer work in the inner city.

But no, Inga in your safe white enclave, you won't. You'll just sit there and continue to beclown yourself by defending an evil woman while conning yourself that you are fighting some big civil rights battle. Yeah, trolling Althouse is just like marching at Selma!!! Except without the danger!! And the Democrats attacking you with firehoses!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Go have another beer MrExile and lay off the anabolic steroids for a while, just sayin'....

8/20/16, 3:12 PM

Can't think of a witty comeback then? Well, you never can. Even your insults are stolen from other commenters.

Although I don't know if you're still sucking up to Ritmo, since he doesn't like your Favorite Hag very much and disapproves of playing The Vagina card.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I would never accuse Unknown of being a daytime drunk. The sad thing is I think she's just as stupid and illogical and nasty stone cold sober as most people would be after 10 Margaritas.

If she got drunk, she'd have the IQ of a head of cauliflower.

Unknown said...

Mr.Exile,

No I take it back, you aren't drunk, you're psychotic. Say hi to "Inga".

Terry said...

"Maybe good white Christians can act as missionaries to the black heathens in the inner city and bring them to the Lord Trump through the gentle love of Christ and their Godliness."
That is possibly the most racist comment I have ever seen on Althouse, 'Unknown.' Say, you really are a proud member of the party of Jefferson and Jackson, aren't you?

Lydia said...

Prior to 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Republican. After 1932, 90% of Blacks voted Democrat. How do you explain that if not FDR's New Deal and the arrival of government checks?

Those statistics are a bit off -- FDR got 23% of the black vote in 1932, and then 71% of the black vote in 1936, and thereafter civil rights issues offer another explanation for the growth to where the vote is today:

"He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment.

Even after that, Republican nominees continued to get a large slice of the black vote for several elections. Dwight D. Eisenhower got 39 percent in 1956, and Richard Nixon got 32 percent in his narrow loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960.

But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election.

The following year Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. No Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote since."

Unknown said...

Terry, no, I am merely channeling the white Christian bible thumping scripture quoting hypocrites who comment here at Althouse. It's not a pretty picture, is it?

mockturtle said...

Nowhere on my ballot is there a 'race' question. Other than polling and city demographics, how would the statistics be derived? Are blacks who live in suburbs or rural areas not counted while inner city dwellers are?

Unknown said...

"Are blacks who live in suburbs or rural areas not counted while inner city dwellers are?"

Are the blacks who live in the suburbs included in the "losers" comment Trump directed to the black community yesterday, after which he asked for their vote? He seemed to lump all black people into the group who struggle with poverty.

Lydia said...

Nowhere on my ballot is there a 'race' question. Other than polling and city demographics, how would the statistics be derived?

In discussing the race and ethnicity votes in the 2008 election, here's how the Pew Research Center said it derived its information:

"The data for this report are derived from the November Voting and Registration Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 55,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The November Voting and Registration Supplement is one of the richest sources available of information about the characteristics of voters. It is conducted after Election Day and relies on survey respondent self-reports of voting and voter registration."

AReasonableMan said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
the Dems can't even vet people who not only show up at their rallies but sit right behind their candidate.


Not sure this is an entirely bad thing in an era of overly stage managed campaigns.

TWW said...

"Blacks have been voting Democrat for fifty years and they're still poor." - Charles Barkley

Freder Frederson said...

Some of you are illustrating my point.

So you are surprised this post brought out the nastiest racists in your commeteriat? You really aren't paying attention to your readers.

Jersey Fled said...

Still waiting for Unknown to identify where/when Hillary denounced Marteen's father's support.

Unknown said...

"Clinton's campaign representative responded hours later, saying, "She disagrees with his views and disavows his support.""

http://abcnews.go.com/US/clinton-disavows-support-father-orlando-shooter/story?id=41261810

walter said...

AReasonableMan saidNot sure this is an entirely bad thing in an era of overly stage managed campaigns.
--
It matters in terms of competency. Seems to be plenty to suggest she's trying to control all her surroundings. This one is either intentional or complete fail.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"And I don't know what happens when you purport to address black people and what you're saying is, basically: You are poor."

It was less noticed, but DJT did also call out unsuccessful whites who support him as non-winners, aka losers.

"We don't win anymore. You people [pointing to the crowd] don't win, that's for sure."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/to-be-discussed

Presumably some rich folks look at normal Americans and see losers, as DJT stated regarding his supporters and black folks. After all, if successful folks like DJT can be winners, why can't the rest of you losers pickup the pace.

Gahrie said...

So you are surprised this post brought out the nastiest racists in your commeteriat?

Yeah..wanting a better life for American Black people is clearly racist.

chickelit said...

Trump started out campaigning sporting a red "Make America Great Again" hat. Lately, he's been wearing a white one. I predict that by November, he'll be wearing a blue one.

Blue used to be the color associated with the Republican Party; Red was the color of Democrats and especially of the South. That all switched. Trump is switching it back, mixing it up and muddling the boundaries.

Gahrie said...

Not sure this is an entirely bad thing

Most of the rest of us are.

walter said...

PBJ,
And you know the context of "winning" and "losing" makes a difference.
You so clever.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

chick,

He's been using all three colors already.

And, he trade marked that phrase in 2012.

harrogate said...

Borowitz:

"THE FIVE STAGES OF TRUMP
1. Joke
2. Media curiosity
3. Alarming success
4. Threat to all living things on planet
5. Joke"

chickelit said...

@PBJ: Thanks for the info regarding hat colors. I hadn't noticed.

And, he trade marked that phrase in 2012.

That's pretty common knowledge.

Do you resent that?

walter said...

One of those should be "Hitler!"

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Do you resent that?"

I don't know why I would resent that.

But, it seems like this situation is something that should cause me to think about the stuff DJT is doing today in the context of moves that could be implemented years down the road.

Valentine Smith said...

Trump needs to focus his message to African-American men by appealing to their sense of honor and responsibility. Ignore the welfare horseshit and play up some of the positive aspects of achievement. He could easily peel off over 5 percent of the middle classes.

Achilles said...

The problem is Hillary didn't think mateen was a problem until she saw the polls. The right thing to do is never part of the equation for Hillary.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" I am merely channeling the white Christian bible thumping scripture quoting hypocrites"

It wasn't me, but maybe it wouldn't hurt if you actually knew something of the Bible, you goofy twit, since you're clearly ignorant of the traditional faith of the civilization you wish to tear down. Critics of Christianity generally do better than they actually know something about the topic he speak about.

I'd say your Bible is "It Takes a Village" but since it was written at an 6th grade level, you had to have had someone read it to you. Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.

You've gotta be Inga. Nobody else is quite so stupid in quite the same way. Why, you special snowflake you!

Unknown said...

Mateen shows up at Clnton rally on August 9th, Clinton disavows his support August 10th.

Unknown said...

Oh boy, Mr.Exiled is back. Did you escape your locked ward? You crazy little Houdini, you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

No, I was out enjoying the lovely afternoon instead of reading your brain farts. No wonder you're a Democrat - you're so stupid you need government help to tie your own shoes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Keep on barking for Hillary, sweetie!

She's barking for you!

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/15311-hillary-clinton-barks-like-a-dog-in-donald-trumps-new-ad

Unknown said...

Mr. Exiled, yes we know you were out wandering the hospital grounds, glad to see you made your way back unharmed.

rcocean said...

Trump will win 10% of the Black vote at MOST. There's NOTHING the Repubs can do to win back the black vote. Correction: they never had the black vote. Even in 1960 when JFK ran with Texas segregationist LBJ, and Nixon ran with civil rights supporting H.C. lodge, the Repubs sill only got 40% of the black vote.

McCain and Romney pandered to black voter every freaking chance they got, and only received 10% of the black vote.

On Race, trump is a NYC liberal, but it will get him squat, because he has (R) after his name.

rcocean said...

I fully expect Trump to lose.

White America will never wake up until its too late. And I expect Black America will NEVER wake up. As long as they think they're "Sticking it to whitey" they'll be happy.

Most people are morons. Its only AFTER the deluge of s*** do they understand they've been wrong and things need to change.

I think we'lll need at LEAST 4 years of Hillary to do that.

Achilles said...

Navy sailor goes to jail for having secret material on his own computer.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/20/navy-sailor-goes-to-jail-after-using-hillary-defense/

Elect Hillary and see what happens when the veteran community treats the law like Hillary does.

wildswan said...

The Great Lakes area lost 3 million jobs net since 1970. As a result employment for white men fell from 94% to 84%, for Hispanics from 90% to 72% and for blacks from 85% to 52%. Trump's idea is to increase jobs; Hillary's is another stimulus. A stimulus even if it worked worked give a job working on roads and bridges for a few years; better trade deals would increase the number of manufacturing jobs - forty years of work.

Left-led cities are hostile to American businesses and support selling out manufacturing in trade deals. Unexpectedly, Democrat-led cities are constantly losing jobs. But there's plenty of abortion so that will work out as abortion is wiping out the blacks. And schools in the poorest black areas are hell holes but the teacher's union-Democrat party axis makes sure there is no accountability and as little in the way of vouchers or charter schools as possible. Hillary supporters do not care - see above comments by Hillary supporters. The way a toad looks, Hillary supporters speak - but constructive idea - no.

So what do the inner city blacks have to lose, if they vote Republican? Good jobs? Good schools? A plan toward those goals? Trump will work for jobs and schools but Hillary regards the present as the "New Normal." Sort of like the "New Deal" except the Democrat New Normal program is to keep the jackboot on the necks of everyone, not take it off.

exiledonmainstreet said...

In the USSR those who dared to criticize the Party were called insane, so it's no surprise that an addled leftist like Unknown would choose that line of attack. Like I said, she can't even come up with an original insult. All of her thoughts come from some other source.

John said...


Blogger Hagar said...

Is there actual evidence for that? It does not sound like LBJ.

Au contraire, Hagar, Read Dallek's or Caro's bios of LBJ (both are good, though Dallek likes LBJ a bit more than Caro) LBJ commonly used the word N|gger. Not in public but in private conversations including with blacks.

I do not recall the quote in either bio but in the 50's when Senate Majority Leader LBJ was trying to get an ant-lynching law passed, one of the arguments he used with other senators was that "n|ggers" were going to vote eventually and passing an anti-lynching law would convince them to vote democratic. That appears in Caro's Master of the Senate, don't remember for sure if it appears in Dallek's bio

That may not have been his only motivation but it was a tool he used to sell the idea. Unsuccessfully.

John Henry


What does sound like him is a quote about the White southerners not voting Democrat for a long time, i.e. losing the "Solid South," of which he had been a notable member in Congress.

John said...

Someone, PB&J(?) mentioned the Scott Adams interview with Stefan Molyneux. I downloaded the MP3 and listened to it today. Interesting throughout.

http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_3383_Scott_Adams.mp3

One point that Adams, I think, made was about Trump's time horizon vs the typical politician. The typical politician has little or no interest in the future any farther than their next election. All they want to do is kick the can down the road a bit further.

Trump has been doing commercial real estate for 50 years, says Adams. Commercial real estate requires a very long, sometimes multiple decades, planning horizon. From the time a developer gets an idea "I want to build a 50 story luxury condo on this corner" to actually breaking ground might take 5 years or more. Maybe 10 years till they start to see revenue. Interest rates and ground leases may be locked in for 50 years or more. Developers need a good crystal ball.

There is an awful lot of work and an awful lot of often disparate groups that need to be dealt with over a long time.

Adams feels that this will make Trump better at being president than the typical politician.

The point about Trump's planning horizon is pretty evident, though I'd not really considered it before. I understand his argument and sort of buy it. I think the long horizon will be helpful. I do not know how important it is in the overall qualities we are looking for in a president.

John Henry

Terry said...

I thought I should beat 'Unknown' by posting this first!

We have a former president and a prospective future president selling access, the appearance of access and the Clinton aura to Wall Street giants, governments such as Saudi Arabia and Germany, tycoons from several nations, multinational corporations and more. The foundation has collected $2 billion since its 2001 founding. Since then, the Clintons have also amassed more than $150 million in speaking fees, often from the same donors.

These special interests are not giving money because the foundation is such an effective charitable organization; a 2013 New York Times investigation made it seem chaotic. They are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear shopworn speeches because they expect to obtain profound insights. They want the Clintons’ help, and they’re willing to pay for it.

That is the obvious conclusion to draw from The New York Times’ 2015 bombshell about how a Russian firm obtained control of one-fifth of all U.S. uranium production capacity from 2009-13 — which required approval from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — while the company’s owner used a Canadian partnership to surreptitiously convey $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/aug/19/clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-enterprise/
Has Trump ever done anything that approaches this level of corruption? Didn't think so!
Feel free to cross-post this at Alternet, TPM, and Huffpo, 'Unknown'!

mockturtle said...

I do not recall the quote in either bio but in the 50's when Senate Majority Leader LBJ was trying to get an ant-lynching law passed, one of the arguments he used with other senators was that "n|ggers" were going to vote eventually and passing an anti-lynching law would convince them to vote democratic.

This quote was also included in a book I recently read about LBJ & Lady Bird, Lady Bird and Lyndon: The Hidden Story of a Marriage that Made a President, by Betty Boyd Caroli. I have also read Caro's bio of LBJ but it was a long time ago. LBJ was an SOB by anyone's standard. That said, he was a very effective politician.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Left-led cities are hostile to American businesses and support selling out manufacturing in trade deals. Unexpectedly, Democrat-led cities are constantly losing jobs"

The Cato Institute has come out with its' annual ranking of freest to least free states. The freest states are New Hampshire, Alaska, Oklahoma, Indiana, and South Dakota. Indiana and Alaska have experienced slight population deceases in the past year; the others have gained. The least free state in the country is deep blue New York, which lost 11.2 percent of its' population in a year, followed by deep blue California. Despite all the immigrants crossing the border, California is down by 4.9 percent. New Jersey, Maryland and
Hawaii are the other states in the bottom 5 and their numbers are also down. If you click on each state, you discover something which must be utterly mystifying to liberals - by and large, the most over-regulated, most taxed, least free states - the most Democratic ones - are the ones people are fleeing. Why how can that be?

How can you manage to screw up a beautiful state so badly that people leave for South Dakota and Oklahoma? Easy - let Democrats run it. They're real good at campaigning. At governing, not so much.

http://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall

exiledonmainstreet said...

In "Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960", by Robert Dallek, Johnson defended the Supreme Court appointment of Thurgood Marshall, rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, by saying to a staff member, "Son, when I appoint a n*gger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n*gger."

tola'at sfarim said...

Hope and change in trumpian terminology

exiledonmainstreet said...

rcocean said...

"I fully expect Trump to lose.

White America will never wake up until its too late. And I expect Black America will NEVER wake up. As long as they think they're "Sticking it to whitey" they'll be happy.

Most people are morons. Its only AFTER the deluge of s*** do they understand they've been wrong and things need to change"

I think you are right. I hope we are both wrong.

jdniner said...

The women supporting Hilary are essentially toxic soccer moms willing to endanger the safety of their kids for an internet meme. In most blue states CPS would be called.

gadfly said...

@wildswan said . . .
Trump's idea is to increase jobs; Hillary's is another stimulus. A stimulus even if it worked worked give a job working on roads and bridges for a few years; better trade deals would increase the number of manufacturing jobs - forty years of work.

Trump said . . .
"We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions more jobs.”

Milton Friedman said . . .
“For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.”

I am going with Milton Friedman here upon his citing of the futility related to the First Rule of Holes. Wildswan will have to figure out whether it is Trump or Hillary (of both) angling for another monster stimulus package that will end up rewarding political supporters rather than putting the unemployed (no longer looking for work) - back to work.

mockturtle said...

While long a fan of Friedman, I think our current infrastructure is at the point of needing redemption. And prisons. LOTS more prisons.

Scott said...

For what it is worth (and I am sure at least one other commenter has mentioned this....) the GOP doesn't have to win the black vote, it only has to chip away at it. If the GOP could get, say 25% of the black vote, and black turnout stayed the same (or declined, the latter being far more likely), it would become extremely difficult for Hillary! to carry enough states to win the election. She will pile up gigantic margins in CA/NY/IL, certainly, but the number of electoral votes are not affected by the size of those margins.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Granting arguendo the necessity for infrastructure and infrastructure spending... Who do you think gets more and better infrastructure for a trillion dollars, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

chickelit said...

Who do you think gets more and better infrastructure for a trillion dollars, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Trump seems to get more bang for his buck than Hillary does.

MikeR said...

Good, but he really needs to be doing this in black neighborhoods. Over and over again.

Mick said...

Brilliant.

Trump LANDSLIDE over the Crooked Old Lady. Plenty of Black people I know are voting for Trump, a real American, and someone who cares about America, and its CITIZENS, no matter the race. The Crooked Old Lady wants to give away US Citizens' birthright for nothing.

It's turning even bigger. He will wipe the floor with the Crooked Old Lady.

Bruce Hayden said...

Trump gets more bang for the buck, by far, but it isn't just that he has built things and Crooked Hillary never has. Maybe as importantly, spending in general, and infrastructure spending in particular, are seen by Dems as a way to pay off cronies and friends. The important thing is no is who gets the contracts, and not whether or not the primary jets ever get done. If the program can be dragged out for decades, so much ch the better. An esp historical example of this is the bullet train from nowhere to nowhere in CA. Never mind that you can already fly between LA and SF faster and at a fraction of the expected cost, if and when the train is completed. Isn't it Feingold's husband who is the prime contractor there? Something like that. No discernible benefit for anyone except the insiders getting their share of the graft for maybe the next half century. Meanwhile, of course, the roads in the Golden State have fallen apart, but there is no money to pay to get them fixed, because all the excess is either going to the train, illegal immigrants, or outsized pensions for state workers. The joys of one party rule, esp when that party is the Dems. And, we should expect little different from a Crooked Hillary stimulus. Pelosi essentially said with Obama's "Stimulus", the object wasn't really to accomplish anything, but rather just to spend money (and, if they are going to do that, they might get as well spend it on their pet projects and give it to their friends) So, with much of a trillion supposedly spent, much supposedly on infrastructure, the result is that our roads are worse than ever, our national parks are falling apart, and our national forests are burning. And, some of the money was never spent (and would have been spent counter cyclicly if the Stimulus had worked) because of NIMBY policies, and that there is no such ch thing any more as Shovel Ready Jobs.

Bruce Hayden said...

Again, apologies for errors in that previous post. Apple's spell check gone wild again.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry if a little OT, but a question for Crooked Hillary supporters - What is she up to? During the month of August, she saw roughly 1/10 the number of live people as did Trump, didn't go to LA (didn't spend any of the family foundation money on disaster relief there either), and doesn't have any campaign events scheduled for the rest of the month, Just two fund raisers. Is she resting up for the fall, expecting to start campaigning hard after Labor Day? Or does she expect to be able to win through surrogates and massive ad buys? A bit more than two months left, and this could be a dangerous strategy with Trump showing discipline, giving good speeches, and staying on message. I have little doubt that he will soon start calling her out for her inactivity, and that will be hard to counter, esp with her health appearing to slide, and her scandals not going away, but rather seeming to gain steam.

MayBee said...

"-I predict that blacks will vote for Hillary :-)"

I can never understand why this isn't considered incredibly racist.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Delusion -
Rusty said...
Oddly enough there are as many uninsured today as there were before this fiasco was implimented.

and
Reality:

Hmm. They don't seem to be addressing the current trend of insurance companies abandoning the program which is leaving more people uninsured. Which, oddly enough , gives us the same number of uninsured as before this thing was enacted.

Bruce Hayden said...

The good and the bad is that while roughly the same number are privately insured now as before (the increase in insured is almost completely Medicaid, and a little Medicare disability), who is insured has changed some. Before, if you were prudent, you maintained insurance when you were healthy, for when you weren't. Now, there is little reason to pay for insurance until you need it, so, to no rational person's surprise, the risk pool has gotten much worse, and will continue to do so until the system completely falls apart, since premiums are moving sharply higher to compensate, driving more and more of those who don't need insurance, right now, out of the market. A stupid system designed by stupid people (I.e. Liberal politicians, who never expect to be covered by their monstrosity).

Robert Fulton said...

I heard back from aol about their annoying anti-Trump plugins and slanted news:
“Hello there,

Thank you for the comment and we appreciate your passion. Our editors work very hard to provide news that is beyond left and right and is free of bias in any direction. We want the AOL community to be a place where Americans from all political viewpoints feel welcome, and we hope that you will continue to share yours with our community in the comments sections of articles with which you disagree.

Regards,

Lucian

Customer Care Specialist”

So, the difficult search for a new email provider begins. I sure could use a suggestion.

Hyphenated American said...

"Mateen shows up at Clnton rally on August 9th, Clinton disavows his support August 10th"

Weirdly, Hillary Clinton did not say a word about the father of a Moslem terrorist seated behind her at a rally. The guy is worse than David Duke and she does not say a word. It's been almost two weeks, and yer she is silent....

Hyphenated American said...

Donald Trump has an opportinity with American blacks. Here are a few things he should say....

1. American "public schools" are a disaster. Liberals controlled them for many decades, spent trillions of dollars, and achieved nothing. Do you want your kids to succeed! Send them to private schools, this is what Obama and Hillary did. I will help you, I will give such an opportunity. If you want a choice, if you want your kids to succeed, don't trust Hillary, she will fail you. Don't allow liberals to confine your children's behind the walls of government schools, vote for a choice.

2. In the last few months, the violence in large cities skyrocketed. This happened due to liberal policies. Do you want to go back to the dark times of 1970ies and 80ies when the crime was rampant, when drug addicts and drug dealers and thugs and violent criminals ran the streets? If you vote for Hillary, you vote against your security, against the security of your children, against the safety of your community. Liberals openly side with thugs and criminals, don't vote for liberals.

Rusty said...

ARM you are right. The insured have increased by 16.7 % It would have been 22.3 but the difference dropped out of the program for one reason or another. However. I stick by my prediction., The business model is unsound and will eventually collapse without a massive infusion of tax dollars.