February 20, 2017

"Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous."

"But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed. Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump."

From a NYT op-ed by Sabrina Tavernise titled "Are Liberals Helping Trump?"

I'll just answer from my personal perspective (about how it affects me): Yes.

302 comments:

1 – 200 of 302   Newer›   Newest»
D. B. Light said...

I'm actually starting to feel protective toward him. That's strange.

rehajm said...

It's wishful thinking to call the reaction equal and opposite.

dreams said...

The corrupt liberal media are offended that Trump Tweeted that they are the enemy of the people but they are trying to destroy Trump's presidency and Trump was elected by the people so therefore Trump is right when he says that the media are the enemies of the people.

WisRich said...

I was lukewarm on Trump.

Voted for Trump just to keep Clinton out.

Now: Not only have I been happy with the results, I'm turning into a enthusiastic Trump supporter.

This happened in WI during the recall election as well.

MadisonMan said...

This is what a big tantrum looks like

Same cadence as that tiresome anti-Walker This is what democracy looks like.

Democrats have learned -nothing- from Scott Walker's election.

(My answer is also Yes.)

Michael K said...

The lefties were complaining yesterday about the security details accompanying Trump's children on trips.

Does anyone else think that the security would be more relaxed if the leftist hysteria were not such a feature of the situation?

I do.

Obama went to fund raisers in California using AF One and I heard nothing about reimbursing the feds for the costs. I seem to remember the Republican Party reimbursing fuel costs or something like that for purely political trips. It was only a fraction of the cost but it was symbolic.

WisRich said...

I should clarify: I voted Trump so Clinton would not be allowed a SCOTUS pick.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

No, liberals, this is not helping Trump at all.

Just keep doing what you are doing, only louder and more in people's faces.

That's the way to win hearts and minds.

Sebastian said...

"I'll just answer from my personal perspective (about how it affects me): Yes." Ditto.

Hagar said...

The liberals got what they wanted and more and have largely retired from the field. What we are left with is the progressives, which is a totalitarian religious movement for whom there is no such thing as "enough" and cannot be compromised with.

Nonapod said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WisRich said...

"Liberals feel energized...".

Go for it.

I'm sure they'll see a surge in activism and voting in CA, NY, and IL...right where they need them. ;)

Nonapod said...

Being persuasive is actually difficult. Insulting and attempting to shame people only goes so far, and certainly many would argue that it doesn't really go anywhere.

If you want to convince people that your argument is the best, you have to actually think about the people you're trying to convince. You have to actually think about why they may hold a particular view. The problem is, thinking about such things can inevitably lead you to reexamine your own views. Maybe you're not actually right? Maybe you're not as good a person as you believe you are? Is it possible you could even be misinformed about certain things? Is it possible that you're being far to dismissive of your opponents? Maybe they're not evil. Maybe they're not just a bunch of morons.

wendybar said...

WisRich said...
I was lukewarm on Trump.

Voted for Trump just to keep Clinton out.

Now: Not only have I been happy with the results, I'm turning into a enthusiastic Trump supporter.

This happened in WI during the recall election as well.

2/20/17, 10:14 AM


Exactly!! Me too!! And the more the Liberals/Progressives riot and protest, the more I like him...The more the Media bashes him...the more I agree with him...After 8 years of a SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR with President Obama...We needed somebody like Trump who will not back down and get scared of the bullying attacks from the left!!!

AReasonableMan said...

Hmmm.

AllenS said...

If you want to convince people that your argument is the best, you have to break more windows, and burn more cars. Also, punch out some elderly people.

tcrosse said...

I held my nose and voted for Trump because HRC was the alternative. Not that it matters, because my state carried Hillary. Since then, Trump is still not quite to my taste, but I am appalled by the Power Hunger of the Hillary Camp. So anything to keep her and her friends' hands off the levers of power.
BTW, how many of Hillary's voters had to hold their noses ?

David Begley said...

Trump and Bannon had this all figured out from the beginning. The best one I like is the plan to remove Trump from office per the 25th Amendment. Pure lunacy. This better than they ever expected.

WisRich said...

David Begley said...
Trump and Bannon had this all figured out from the beginning. The best one I like is the plan to remove Trump from office per the 25th Amendment. Pure lunacy. This better than they ever expected.

2/20/17, 10:30 AM


Heh. It's funny because it's true.

DKWalser said...

Ours is supposed to be a pluralistic society where people get along despite the fact we hold differing opinions about politics, religion, and other matters. The Left is at war with the idea that people holding differing opinions can and should get along. They've been trying (and succeeding) to get people fired our put out of business for holding the wrong opinions. The only way the Left can win this war is if the rest of us refuse to fight it.

If the rest of the country wakes up to this threat to its way of life, the Left cannot win. The Left makes up a relatively small percentage of the country. If the rest of the country were to employ the Left's tactics against the Left, Leftists would be the ones hounded out of their jobs and communities. It won't be pretty and its not something I want to see. The Left legitimized the use of tools they would not want used against themselves. They survive only because the rest of us refuse to use the means the Left has been using against us.

Unknown said...

most interesting thing about that article is the comments are disabled. I don't think the Times wants to test those waters too deeply.

Bob Boyd said...

A mental health exercise for the Trump era. This works for Trumpers and anti-Trumpers alike.

Admit out loud, "I could be wrong about Trump."

traditionalguy said...

Ask Milo how open minded the Soros paid mobs are today. After the way he is treated, Milo favors Daddy.

When Truth destroys your Fake Narrative, the method must be to censor and imprison speakers who have the real facts.( See, Global Warming Hoax as run by UN World Police)

gspencer said...

Nothing says, "I'm trying to persuade you so that you'll understand the progressive position on the issues," than zero-ing out my ability to speak and present any counter-argument.

The Heckler's Veto enshrined.

"Agree with me, or I'll kill you"

That's the title of the final but lost chapter in Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People,"

Robert Cook said...

"In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed."

What about having the courage of their convictions? Very few people here agree with my viewpoint, and it doesn't bother me. In fact, that's why it's stimulating for me to post here. It would be awfully boring to spend all my time on a blog where everyone shared my viewpoint, where each commenter was simply another "dittohead."

This suggests to me the conservative voters who feel this way don't know why they hold the views they do and are thus unable to defend their positions...perhaps they're just parroting what they've been raised to believe by their families or what their friends and neighbors believe.

I do agree the moral preening and histrionic outrage that has followed in the wake of Trump's election is ridiculous and off-putting. The Hillary supporters--thoroughly bamboozled--are incapable of seeing her loss is completely of her own and of the Dems' making. They refuse to see that much of what Trump will do Hillary would also have done, (i.e., make the world ever safer and more profitable for the rapacious oligarchs, for whom too much is never enough, and expand our criminal military catastrophes abroad).

I credit Trump for telling some truths that Hillary and Obama would and could never utter: that we are a nation of killers no less than Putin's Russia, that a conflict with Russia is a bad thing, not a good thing, that the "free trade" deals have gutted jobs and wages in this country, etc. However, Trump will not make good on many of his promises, first, because he didn't mean all of it, second, because the problems are resistant to quick and easy remedy, and third, because even those things he meant--not fighting with Russia--are at loggerheads with the agenda of the deep state, and he will go along or be brought down.

Sydney said...

I also, have to answer, "Yes." I am getting tired of all the hate. It is not winning hearts and minds. In the real world- here in our local communities, in our jobs, etc., we all have to work together and get along. When you hate someone because they disagree with you politically and publicly voice your opinion of how little you regard them, then you pretty much isolate yourself, not the people who disagree with you. What do they call people like that in England? Pratts?

exiledonmainstreet said...

I agree with those who said they voted for Trump reluctantly, but are now much more enthusiastic about him due to the insanity of the Left.

What I am uneasily aware of is that there will be times I disagree with him. I will actually be more reluctant to publicly criticize him because I don't want to give the Left any opportunity to gloat. That's not a great state of affairs.

But the Left is making it impossible to discuss politics in an adult fashion.

"You're either for him or against him!" and that pretty much eliminates nuance.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Was this from their "No Shit, NYT" desk? Oh, an Op-Ed; makes sense that it'd take an outside voice to state something so obvious.

. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.

Here's how behind/"in the bubble" these people are: they may actually believe this is a NEW thing. That phenomenon is part of why "you got Trump!" Of course conservatives, and especially moderate conservatives, are tired of being made to feel that any disagreement form the standard Left line (which in recent years is pretty strongly/far Left, relatively speaking) is shameful and both should and WILL be punished. The whole "he fights!" Trump shtick is a direct response to that--people see nice, polite, moderate Republicans like Romney get their asses kicked by a consolidated Left (Dems, Media, pop culture/celebrities) and are sick of it, so they're willing to tolerate someone with whom they would otherwise never agree--like Trump--just so long as that person is willing to directly confront or "call out" the Left's assaults.

The Media overreaction/hysterical reactions attacking Trump almost forces moderate conservatives and/or Repubs to take Trump's side. They push ridiculous arguments based on falsehoods--this guy's mom died because of the travel ban!; Trump's going to call up the National Guard to deport people!--and can't see how much it hurts their efforts (otherwise-legitimate efforts) to criticize Trump.

Robert Cook said...

"Exactly!! Me too!! And the more the Liberals/Progressives riot and protest, the more I like him...The more the Media bashes him...the more I agree with him...After 8 years of a SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR with President Obama...We needed somebody like Trump who will not back down and get scared of the bullying attacks from the left!!!

It's really not wise to approve of someone simply because the people you dislike hate him, or to agree with him simply because the media bashes him. Sometimes, (very often), both (or all) choices are awful. Clinton was awful; Trump is awful. Voting for either of them was a lose-lose option.

traditionalguy said...

In Choir we were practicing Eternal Father, Strong to Save (A/K/A The Navy Hymn). I looked it's history up, and it's Episcopalian from the 1850s. The British Navy being its first home.

Interestingly, that magical song was the favorite Hymn of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and was played at both their funerals.

And more and more, Trump has reached the hearts of his supporters equal to what those two men did.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael K said...Does anyone else think that the security would be more relaxed if the leftist hysteria were not such a feature of the situation?

I don't think the Secret Service security would be relaxed in any case--the President's family always gets pretty serious protection.

Now the fun one is new Sec of Ed DeVos--she's being protected by US Marshals in response to threats and "protests" that included blocking her access to schools, etc. The Leftist hysteria against DeVos certainly caused those costs.

[Isn't it funny that DeVos has been the target of so much of the protest/hate, compared to other Trump appointees? The Dept of Ed is, on paper at anyway, one of the least-powerful and least-important departments. It's almost like the strength of the opposition is in some way related to the threat DeVos poses to a specific interest group that just happens to provide an outsized proportion of the Democrat party's funding...but no, no, it can't be something so venal as that, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.]

David said...

True, but Trump has to show results, which means getting the legislative agenda going.

MikeR said...

"However, Trump will not make good on many of his promises, first, because he didn't mean all of it..." I would have thought so. But I have been _very_ pleasantly surprised about how much he is following through. DeVos, Pruitt, the Wall... Walking the walk.

Michael K said...

perhaps they're just parroting what they've been raised to believe by their families or what their friends and neighbors believe.

I grew up with Roosevelt Democrat parents. They were very upset when I voted for Nixon in 1960 as we were allegedly related to Kennedy. I had taken an Economics course in college and, in those days, college Economics was not contaminated with Marxism.

I lived in California until quite recently and three of my children are leftists. I would say that suggests that I am tolerant of other views even though to leftists here I seem "a right wing racist homophobe."

Does that suggest anything to you, Robert ?

I used to read and comment at Washington Monthly until I was banned, mostly I think because I did not agree with single payer as the health care reform.

This suggests to me the conservative voters who feel this way don't know why they hold the views they do and are thus unable to defend their positions

I think I can say that I have explained why I believe as I do here.

I even agree with you once in a great while.

Robert Cook said...

"What I am uneasily aware of is that there will be times I disagree with (Trump). I will actually be more reluctant to publicly criticize him because I don't want to give the Left any opportunity to gloat. That's not a great state of affairs."

You're right, it's not a great state of affairs when you're reluctant to criticize an elected official because you don't want your political opposites to "gloat." It's incumbent on those who support any particular elected official to be more critical of his or her actions and policies with which they disagree than the opposing party, (who are expected to criticize).

Bay Area Guy said...

"Are liberals helping Trump?"

Shhh. Don't tell them!

There is a massive struggle at the DNC between Keith Ellison (supported by Bernie Sanders) and Tom Perez (supported by Obama, Clinton, Biden).

Nobody is reporting on this because it's Trump 24/7.

But if the DNC rigs it (again!) against Ellison, the Bernie wing breaks off.

The funny thing is that Perez is a crazed leftist - with one exception: he was part of the Obama administration and supported TPP - a big No-No for our union friends.

Glen Greenwald has the background:

ttps://interc.pt/2kq1m6p


Michael K said...

Trump has to show results, which means getting the legislative agenda going.

I agree but legislation is slow and messy, unlike Obama's EOs and Harry Reid's Continuing Resolutions.

The country has gotten out of the habit of following legislative debate and amendments and votes.

Democrats seem to think obstruction will help their prospects. It helped Republicans because most of the country was opposed to Obamacare and much of Obama and Reid and Pelosi's agenda.

I do agree that Trump will stand or fall on the economy, Cutting taxes may not be enough but Obama left a lot of low hanging fruit in regulation.

traditionalguy said...

The desperate Dems on Media shows are now stressing that Trump only signs Orders and gets no Legislation done...and this makes him into a failure. No mention is made that that the Dems just added three weeks of Filabusters to routine cabinet Appointments, gumming up Congress's works, and now a Recess.

Professional lady said...

Me too - I very reluctantly voted for Trump (I live in Michigan, so my vote mattered) and I was totally surprised when he won. Trump is not perfect, but he's growing on me. The hatred, lies, and threats directed at Trump, his family, and his supporters are total turn offs. I wasn't happy when Obama was elected and I thought he was an awful president, but I never questioned his legitimacy to act as president and I never personally attacked him or his family. I certainly never wanted to see Obama harmed.

buwaya said...

Looking at things from a so-far-fortunate spot in the Fortune 500, the situation doesnt seem to have changed much.
Its not common for management to discuss politics, it never has been.
But when it has been, its almost always in service of a left-wing cause, or in support of Democratic politicians. The biggest exception to this was post 9/11 and through the 2000's when there was loud support for reservists and national guardsmen.
Conversely, there was loud cheering upon Obamas election (save for the silent majority), for Global Warming policies, for environmentalism, for gay this and that, for womens this and that, and a constant over thirty years, racial this and that.
Pushback - not a peep, though silence can be telling I suppose. It is well understood what is prudent and imprudent.

Robert Cook said...

Michael K,

You don't strike me as someone who feels beleaguered or reluctant to state your conservative opinions, because you've obviously thought them through and you are prepared to defend them. (I was, by the way, raised in a Republican family and registered as a Republican myself when I turned 18. My first election in which I could vote was 1976 and I voted for Ford over Carter; in 1980, I voted for Reagan over Carter. By 1984, my views had shifted and I haven't voted for a Republican candidate since. I'm even disgusted with the Democrats. I don't think conservatives are bad people; I just think they have a different view of reality than mine.)

I'm referring to those who say they feel reluctant to state their views. If they are confident in their views, why be reluctant to state them? One doesn't have to get into fights with people simply because they hold different political views. But one also doesn't have feel intimidated to state what one's views are.

Bob Ellison said...

Where, in the political bible, does it say that you've got to be more critical of your own guy?

That's not written. Lefties don't seem to recognize the concept of self-criticism.

"It's incumbent on those who support any particular elected official to be more critical of his or her actions and policies..."

Dream on. Lefties do not do this. Lefties are tribal.

C Stanley said...

The answer is so obviously yes that it's hard to believe they don't see it- but then it's also obvious that they are in a bubble. The hard left has convinced (seemingly) everyone left of center that this tactic of shaming and shunning is the way to effect change. I have no idea why they believe that to be true, and can't think of examples from history when that has worked. At best I'd say it might work when the people being shunned are a small minority.

Like others, I feel pulled toward support of Trump by the behavior of the leftists, but I also feel very wary of that sentiment. I think he and others in his administration can easily manipulate the public by banking on conservatives falling in line because they're repulsed by the left, and potentially overlooking both corruption and policies that they would otherwise never support.

Drago said...

cookie: "If they are confident in their views, why be reluctant to state them?"

If the Jewish Refusniks in the Soviet Uniono were so confident in their views, why were they so reluctant to state them?

Francisco D said...

I registered to vote, as an independent, in 1971. I voted for McGovern and was shocked that Nixon beat the crap out of him. It took four years of Jimmy Carter for me to realized that liberals are the children that conservatives (adults) have to clean up after.

I am still a registered Independent, but have not voted for a democrat POTUS since 1975. Now that I am one of the deplorables, it is easier to recall that every Republican POTUS has been criticized as a Nazi, fascist or idiot by the left.

It's over the top this year, but it's the same script. Why don't people see this?

cronus titan said...

During the campaign, Hillary Clinton famously asked "Why aren't I 50 point ahead?" The voters saw first hand that liberals, starting with the candidate, found voting for Trump incomprehensible. In lieu of understanding why people supported Trump, they doubled down on the insults. The campaign referred to them as deplorable and irredeemable, and now it has turned to rioting and insane rhetoric. The most likely outcome is that some who voted for Trump had their decision validated, and others are seeing that liberals have no business governing anyone. IF they act like this after a loss, what would they have done if they had won? Would they have been gracious or respectful? No, they would have rubbed their noses in the concrete (which Obama by and large did after his elections).

THis is how you get more Trump.

exiledonmainstreet said...

At any rate, I doubt the Left will heed this advice. If they were calm and sober people, they take a good look at their own floundering party and the errors they made over the past year which helped put Trump in the WH. Those errors include, but are not limited to: torpedoing Bernie to ensure that a bad and unlikable candidate would become the nominee, thinking the 2012 "War on Women" playbook would work again in 2016 and big money donors and glitzy celebs would drag Hill's ass across the finish line, doing very little campaigning in general (compared to Trump, who was making an incredible number of campaign stops), especially in the Upper Midwest, and amazingly, wasting money running ads in LA and Chicago.

They would also have to look at their own shoddy computer security which allowed that idiot Podesta to be hacked so easily, rather than screaming about the Trump campaign being in cahoots with Putin.

But that's hard work. It's painful. The media managed it for about 15 minutes on the morning of November 9 and then stopped. It's much easier and more fun to demonize everything Trump does and says, march, scream and wear pussy hats.

n.n said...

Trump may stop waging social justice from Libya to Syria to Ukraine, and globally, really, that is a first-order cause of refugee crises?

Trump may disengage from Obama's policy of committing elective regime changes and extra-judicial trials?

Trump may end immigration reform and address the causes of mass emigration?

Trump may address the dysfunctional medical care market?

Trump may reverse the reconstitution of institutional racism and sexism under [class] diversity?

Trump may reverse the disenfranchisement of People and Posterity through excessive immigration?

Trump may resolve the devaluation of capital and labor through progressive debt?

Trump may close the abortion chambers and end capital punishment of the wholly innocent?

Trump may end the practice of Planned Parenthood (e.g. clinical cannibalism)?

A separation of Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled, Church and State?

Liberals, Progressives, Libertarians, and Leftists generally are all helping.

traditionalguy said...

Politics in the USA is about being the majority, and that means having a bigger circle of supporters than the other guy.

Shunning and shaming is a tactic that shrinks your group of supporters. Which is the curious subject that The Professor posted here.

The leftists are either insane, or the are planning a violent Revolution followed by Martial Law. It's one or the other. Or maybe a long range Mexican citizens voting for the break off of the South Western States, which is what the Russians have actually been doing to our political system.

buwaya said...

Robert,
There is great danger in certain subcultures to stating certain views. Corporate management (in most industries) and many professions are large collections of talented people who risk damage to careers or even livelihoods if they are identified as openly right-wing.
The opposite is rarely true.
Line workers, especially unionized ones, are not as limited. Thats why one often gets the impression that the blue collar workforce in any company are much further right than their management.

Lewis Wetzel said...

In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism . . .
No, it's just plain, ordinary Bolshevism.

Chuck said...

Other than making good copy for liberal newspapers, how does this "energy" get expressed? Teach-ins? Demonstrations on Saturday afternoons? Product boycotts? A new Facebook page? A GoFundMe campaign?

What does it do for elections? Do Democrats turn out a bunch of candidates like Elizabeth Warren? Is that a winning formula?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Cook, Michael K. is a retired physician. He is not in a position where he could lose his livelihood and damage his career by "coming out" as a conservative. If you don't think that has happened, you are not paying attention.

Actor James Wood has said he expects he will never work again in Hollywood because of his support for Trump. The new McCarthyites are on the Left.

Michael K said...

I don't think conservatives are bad people; I just think they have a different view of reality than mine.

I think you are correct to say "reality." There are some very odd ideas circulating.

Some of it is the loss of the teaching of history and civics in school. We have people, some well known, who are making statements about impeachment and the 25th amendment that make no sense.

Democrats are saying things about military coups and the harassment of the Trump children and grandchildren is ugly.

I posted earlier that I think this harassment is increasing the security around them on trips and I still think so. Bush's daughters were in college and had a USSS agent around when they were in public. I think the risk of a Trump child being attacked is far greater than it has ever been with a presidential relative.

The last president with adult children when he took office was Reagan and I don;t recall any fuss about them. I;m sure the USSS kept watch for nuts but I'll bet the security is tighter for the Trump kids because of the hysteria and threats.

The worst thing about empty threats by celebrities is the effect on real nuts. Remember who shot Reagan and why.

Robert Cook said...

@Bob Ellison:

My advisory was directed at everyone, of any political views...not just at Republicans/Conservatives.

It's important to be critical of one's own party and candidates to avoid falling into cheer-leading and "supporting the team." It's now about the team, it's about holding the elected official responsible for his actions and policies. Obama was a shit president but his supporters still fail to see that he might as well have been George Bush, The Return. They were/are so enraptured with the idea of him they ignore or make excuses for his failings.

Robert Cook said...

"Actor James Wood has said he expects he will never work again in Hollywood because of his support for Trump."

Maybe that's how he sees it, but it could be because he's older and his star has fallen. Many actors by his age start finding it difficult to get parts, in favor of younger, newer flavors of the day.

Robert Cook said...

"If the Jewish Refusniks in the Soviet Uniono were so confident in their views, why were they so reluctant to state them?"

Oh, please.

BillyTalley said...

As a kid, my dad imparted his political wisdom, such as it was: "The Democrats are for the little guy, the Republicans are for the fat cats". Funny, how this flipped.

damikesc said...

Now we have Sarah Silverman calling for a military coup and people like Sally Kohn expressing an amazing lack of knowledge on civics (she feels that impeaching Trump AND Pence --- why? Who knows? --- would lead to a "do-over election"). They are looking to take power by any means necessary and don't even know what they're talking about.

The lefties were complaining yesterday about the security details accompanying Trump's children on trips.

Does anyone else think that the security would be more relaxed if the leftist hysteria were not such a feature of the situation?


Yeah. Perhaps harassing Ivanka and her family on an airplane leads to stuff like that.

Trump and Bannon had this all figured out from the beginning. The best one I like is the plan to remove Trump from office per the 25th Amendment. Pure lunacy. This better than they ever expected.

To paraphrase Instapundit, the "ruling elite"'s desire to rule is providing reason enough why they should NEVER be allowed near power ever again.

What about having the courage of their convictions? Very few people here agree with my viewpoint, and it doesn't bother me. In fact, that's why it's stimulating for me to post here. It would be awfully boring to spend all my time on a blog where everyone shared my viewpoint, where each commenter was simply another "dittohead."

The issue is that they tend to silence conservative speakers and harass/assault conservatives. Never mind the obliteration of your GPA if you don't follow the Progressive mindset on all issues. I didn't care because I had no plans for grad school.

How often are left-wing speakers shouted down or threatened with violence enough for a university to refuse to allow them to set foot on campus?

Conservatives, for years, have been willing to debate. It's just that the Left is not.

You're right, it's not a great state of affairs when you're reluctant to criticize an elected official because you don't want your political opposites to "gloat." It's incumbent on those who support any particular elected official to be more critical of his or her actions and policies with which they disagree than the opposing party, (who are expected to criticize).

My issue is that before I even have the chance to criticize, the Left has already bastardized the outrage.

Let's for example, use the travel ban. It was handled poorly, though he was legally permitted to do so. It nearly immediately became a "MUSLIM BAM", which is was not. We had complaints, made simultaneously, that we were "banning Muslims" and "Why didn't we ban folks from Arabia", who, mind you, are Muslims also by and large.

We then get "Why are allowing carve-outs for religious minorities?", ignoring that there is a recognized GENOCIDE of religious minorities in most of those countries.

So, either I tacitly agree with the asinine and blatantly false talking point --- or I defend Trump and not get into my concerns with the travel ban. The travel ban is less problematic than the outright lying about it, IMO.

damikesc said...

What does it do for elections? Do Democrats turn out a bunch of candidates like Elizabeth Warren? Is that a winning formula?

Given that he leads her in a hypothetical matchup after he has been slammed for months and she was "silenced" in the Senate...I hope they go that route.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"You're right, it's not a great state of affairs when you're reluctant to criticize an elected official because you don't want your political opposites to "gloat."

The "gloating" would be online only. In my neighborhood, putting a Trump bumper sticker on my car would surely result in my car getting keyed. When I had a Walker sign in my front yard during the recall effort, someone threw a rock at my window and broke it. I later found the sign ripped up in my yard.

Robert Cook said...

"As a kid, my dad imparted his political wisdom, such as it was: "The Democrats are for the little guy, the Republicans are for the fat cats". Funny, how this flipped."

The Dems have flipped, not the Republicans. (I suspect the Dems were never as much for the little guy as is believed.) Now both parties are for the fat cats. They each have their own populist rhetoric, but their policies are all about the fat cats.

Fernandinande said...

Drago said...
Soviet Uniono


Press 1 for Spanish.

carrie said...

It's drawn me to Trump too and I have also stopped watching network news shows, late evening talk shows, and Saturday Night Live.

Drago said...

ernandinande: "Drago said...
Soviet Uniono Press 1 for Spanish"

The lefty fascists had a country,
And the Soviet Union was its name-o,

U-n-i-o-n-o,

.......

Freeman Hunt said...

From my perspective, also yes.

roesch/voltaire said...

Robert there there is awful ( Clinton) and more awful (Trump) and as long as some of his critics focus on real issues like his appointment of a temperamental unsound person like Flynn or grifter like DeVoss who bought her way into office, or a poorly drafted EO on immigration, then I will resist and not worry about Republicans etc who grow more fond of Agent Orange, as he is known in rap circles.

TosaGuy said...

"What about having the courage of their convictions? Very few people here agree with my viewpoint, and it doesn't bother me. In fact, that's why it's stimulating for me to post here. It would be awfully boring to spend all my time on a blog where everyone shared my viewpoint, where each commenter was simply another "dittohead."

That would be a true statement for people who are political junkies and play in the blog comments area. However, the VAST VAST VAST majority of people do not do that have seem to have the mistaken assumption that one can vote for one of the two main party presidential candidates in this country and not be shunned like they molested children.

If these protestors want to make everything about politics, they should not be surprised that people will rebel against that rather than follow along.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Oh please"

Your comment would be much more appropriate if directed at your leftist moron brethren who have labeled every Republican candidate and President since Eisenhower as "Hitler".

But you won't as you are far to busy constructing elaborate and fevered conspiracy dreams.

YoungHegelian said...

@carrie,

It's drawn me to Trump too and I have also stopped watching network news shows, late evening talk shows, and Saturday Night Live.

I've given up on NPR except for Marketplace & Car Talk reruns. It's all Trump all the time, with as much mouth-froth as they can muster.

I'm sure that Trump will do the same thing for NPR pledge drives that Obama did for gun sales.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Robert, the Berkeley rioters were not just "gloating." They were beating people up. How do you think a conservative would fare in that environment? There is a Muslim prof at Georgetown who has been harassed non-stop by a fellow professor ever since she published an article in the WSJ explaining why she voted for Trump.

Big Mike said...

Now both parties are for the fat cats. They each have their own populist rhetoric, but their policies are all about the fat cats.

@Cookie, there's a "yes" but also a "no" as regards Republicans. The small business owner, the family farmer, the rancher, under Obama it was clear that Dumbocrats hate these people with a blinding passion. Waves of hatred. The Republican attitude towards these groups -- and others like them -- varies between benign neglect and tepid support. The Republicans can and ought to do better, but as long as Dumbocrats keep hating on small businesses and family farms (which are a sort of small business), then benign neglect wins their votes 100% of the time.

Matt said...

Let me know when they start saluting cardboard cutouts of Trump. We've now seen that Trump is like a god to some.

tim in vermont said...

Well liberalism is the one true faith.

WisRich said...

Matt said...
Let me know when they start saluting cardboard cutouts of Trump. We've now seen that Trump is like a god to some.

2/20/17, 11:49 AM


Oh, I've got something even better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA

Mmmm,Mmmm, Mmmm. That's some fine liberal indoctrination.

hombre said...

I was a Democrat for years, held elective office for twenty of those years, left the country and when I returned in 2003, I didn't recognize the Party. I became an independent. If I am confronted with a race and I don't like the alternative to the Democrat, I abstain.

The "New Democrats" are, by and large, morally bankrupt character assassins whose politicians only strategies are buying votes with tax dollars or loose immigration policies, abortion and "climate change," formerly known as "global warming." They have recently added ignoring violent demonstrations by their base.

Fortunately, Gallup polls, the leftmediaswine, a senile, ego driven Republican Senator and the usual circle jerk at the universities and elsewhere are encouraging lefty Dems to double down on these losing strategies that have become transparent to at least half of the people in the country.

These leftist Democrats/secular progressives are not properly designated as "liberals." Classic liberals don't share many values with "New Democrats."

Triangle Man said...

"The left" (which now includes libertarians apparently), is borrowing from the Tea Party playbook. Was there much handwringing about a backlash when the Tea Party protests were in full swing.

n.n said...

tim in vermont:

Twilight is the one true faith. Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, unprincipled, opportunistic) is the one true religious/moral philosophy. Liberalism is a divergent ideology. Progressive (i.e. monotonic change) liberalism is a degenerative ideology. Leftism is an authoritarian, totalitarian, minority-oriented political philosophy with a decidedly anti-native outlook.

And conservatism... principles matter.

tim in vermont said...

This stuff is working, I used to support Trump, but since the protests have basically shut down A1A, I have understood that making me drive around is for my own good, and gives me time to think and reflect on the point the protests are trying to make.

Michael K said...

some of his critics focus on real issues like his appointment of a temperamental unsound person like Flynn or grifter like DeVoss

This is the sort of comment that make you look foolish. I'm not sure you realize this.

Flynn is a three star general who ran NSA but was fired by Obama because he disagreed on the Muslim threat. Perhaps you think there is no Muslim threat,

DeVos has a long history in education in Michigan working for vouchers and charter schools. Do you oppose those reforms ?

Why not explain your opposition instead of repeating pretty brainless smears by people who can't explain the electoral college?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Was there much handwringing about a backlash when the Tea Party protests were in full swing.

2/20/17, 11:58 AM

The Tea Party was not violent.

n.n said...

Institutional Libertarianism in America exists in the left-right nexus.

Roughcoat said...

My answer is yes.

I went from being a reluctant Trump supporter to an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

Trump is on the way to becoming one of America's most consequential presidents.

The right man at the right time.

He's taking a sledge hammer to a system that needs smashing. I hope he keeps swinging hard and often.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Robert Cook-
Neoliberalism is the result of the elites manufacturing a liberalism that can win elections.
Old style liberalism has been soundly rejected by actual workers.
Because they don't want to starve in the cold and the dark.

Roughcoat said...

We're in a civil war that America needs to fight. Let's rumble.

buwaya said...

There are a host of liberal gods, a pantheon really, but they arent individuals. They are instead images, or idols, of political positions and attitudes.
And they are indeed often found as actual cardboard cutouts, of some aspect or avatar, in an institutions lobby for instance.

Such images of environmentalism, ethnic diversity, womens empowerment, and etc. are common. I find it all vaguely Catholic. I have often been tempted to lay a lit candle before these things, if it werent that in these cases the poor security guys are probably required to call in the bomb squad.

n.n said...

The Tea Party was not violent.

Didn't target people at their homes and businesses. And they were clean, too.

Scott McGlasson said...

It's drawn me to Trump too and I have also stopped watching network news shows, late evening talk shows, and Saturday Night Live.

Ditto for me. What's more, a life-long NPR listener, I've stopped tuning in at all. My daughter has informed me that in their first-hour class (7th grade) they watch morning cable network news two or three times a week and then do projects based on what was discussed. The ONLY channel they watch is CNN.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The Tea Party also did not block traffic.

Why anybody thinks that's a winning strategy, which will somehow make people angrier at Trump than at the morons standing in front of their cars and making them late for work, is beyond me.

TosaGuy said...

"Was there much handwringing about a backlash when the Tea Party protests were in full swing."

The Tea Party was in 2010 a response to actual legislation that affected 20 percent of the American economy. All that has happened thus far is some executive orders and cabinet appointments.

Of course one can see how easy it is for people to confuse the two and have a wildly out-of-proportion response.

Michael K said...

My daughter has informed me that in their first-hour class (7th grade) they watch morning cable network news two or three times a week

My daughter, at that stage of her life (she is 49 in May) told me her 7th grade class held a war crimes trial for Harry Truman, accusing him of the war crime of dropping the atomic bomb. He was convicted by her class.

It's not new.

Sydney said...

""The Democrats are for the little guy,...."

I hear this constantly from my mother and her siblings. All I can say is, if they were for the "little guy" they wouldn't think killing an unborn child is a fundamental right.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The protests are not drawing from the Tea Party playbook but from the '60's playbook.

Nixon won in '68 and again in '72 - by a landslide.

Of course, libs are hoping that Trump also has his own Watergate, but they don't want to wait until after the 2020 election to get there.

hombre said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said: "Robert ... as long as some of his critics focus on real issues like his appointment of a temperamental unsound person like Flynn or grifter like DeVoss who bought her way into office, or a poorly drafted EO on immigration, then I will resist and not worry about Republicans etc who grow more fond of Agent Orange, as he is known in rap circles."

"Real issues?" "Temperamental unsound." "Grifter... who bought her way...." "Poorly drafted EO...." "Agent Orange."

This is a perfect example of the lefty circle jerk in action complete with unproven talking points and character assassination. They can't help themselves. It's all they have.

khesanh0802 said...

@Ann It has been interesting watching your gradual shift to mild support for Trump. Today you made it clear and the reasons for it. How many insults can you ignore?

Though I supported Trump primarily for the Obamacare and SCOTUS issues the crazed reaction of the Libs has made me dig my feet in as well. A little more time and the Lib "resistance" will have defeated itself. Good!

MaxedOutMama said...

I suggest that Ann has the absolute right to remain her stubbornly First-Amendment-embracing moderate self.

The problem that I perceive is that if the moderate leftist/liberal politicians (I would like to believe that some on the left still embrace liberalism) are driven out from the Democratic party, then the country has to seek moderation with Mr. Trump.

That's the danger. Trump's past suggests that he is capable of moderation on most issues, but too great of a forced influx to his camp will remove negotiating room for the moderates. It would be best for the country if he were forced to court moderates, rather than getting them by default.

It ought to be possible for a Democrat to take the position that he/she wants equal rights for transgender people, but that does not have to include a mandate that any man who wants to may use the women's room - but is it? Or will such a politician be thrown into the Nazi camp? It ought to be possible for a Democrat to take the position that due process need not be pitched over on college campuses in order to combat sexual assault/molestation/harassment - but is it?

The Democratic error here is that they have gone full-bore Trump/Nazi with so little basis for that position that such wedge issues are used as proof that the Trumphant Brownshirts are destroying all that is right and good in the US. It is not possible to hurl venom at Trump over these issues while allowing moderate Democrats to publicly campaign as moderate Democrats.

Gahrie said...

My daughter has informed me that in their first-hour class (7th grade) they watch morning cable network news two or three times a week and then do projects based on what was discussed. The ONLY channel they watch is CNN.

Most schools use Channel One which is a TV channel created for the purpose. Extremely liberal, and my 1st period students have heard me exclaim "Oh bullshit!" several times...and then I have to use valuable class time explaining why the "news" broadcast was wrong. A recent case was the hottest year ever bullshit, and I had to spend time teaching them about margin of error and statistical lies.

The Cracker Emcee said...

As a history and current events junkie, I find it all very fascinating. Trump or no, the maniacal cuckoo clock that the Left has transformed itself into is endlessly entertaining.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Hombre,

"I was a Democrat for years, held elective office for twenty of those years, left the country and when I returned in 2003, I didn't recognize the Party. I became an independent. If I am confronted with a race and I don't like the alternative to the Democrat, I abstain."

Similar story here. Growing up in SF/Bay Area, I didn't meet a Republican till I was 18.

I remember the misery of the Carter years (long gas lines, inflation, Iranian hostages), but I couldn't understand my family and neighbors voting for him (or John Anderson) in 1980. If it was so bad, why wouldn't you throw him out of office?

Conversely, if Reagan was so bad, why was he so darn popular?

The Catholic/blue collar/Kennedy Dems no longer exist. They've been replaced by BLM and LBGTQBJKDT, or whatever it is.

Zach said...

The political story of the Obama era was the left overplaying an initially strong hand into disaster.

So far, the story of the Trump era is the left overplaying a weak hand.

I don't even like Trump! I think he's a blowhard who isn't as prepared as he ought to be.

But somehow the left has framed the debate as being whether Trump is an illegitimate president who ought to be removed or frozen out through extralegal means -- impeachment (for no crimes), coup, being frozen out by the courts, being slow walked by the permanent bureaucracy...

It's too big an ask, and they'll never make the sale.

Alex said...

What is so uniquely evil/odious about Donald Trump that warrants 24/7 protests?

Alex said...

That he grabbed a model's pussy? That's it?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"This is a perfect example of the lefty circle jerk in action complete with unproven talking points and character assassination. They can't help themselves. It's all they have."

I believe r/v is a retired teacher. How much of a fair shake do you think a conservative student would have gotten in his class, from the sound of it?

hombre said...

@MichaelK, re: your daughter's class: I may have posted this before or you may have seen it, but I think it relevant.

http://thedeclination.com/ideological-subversion/

Roughcoat said...

I wish Paul Johnson would write a sequel to "Modern Times" starting where that book left off (with the Reagan presidency).

"Modern Times" is the greatest book written about Modern Times.

Gahrie said...

That he grabbed a model's pussy? That's it?

He didn't even grab it...he just bragged that he could........

mockturtle said...

Cookie asserts: The Dems have flipped, not the Republicans. (I suspect the Dems were never as much for the little guy as is believed.) Now both parties are for the fat cats. They each have their own populist rhetoric, but their policies are all about the fat cats.

Agree 100%. And I don't see Trump as either Democrat or Republican. I think he could have won as in Independent.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Modern Times" is the greatest book written about Modern Times.

2/20/17, 12:20 PM

I agree.

Alas, Mr. Johnson is an elderly man now and does not write as much as he used to.

He did opine on Trump last spring. Johnson wanted Trump to win.

TreeJoe said...

This problem is a problem with both parties today, albeit the Republican party somehow conducts itself with a bit more composure.

Neither side can accept seeing the other side succeed at anything. That can be success at the polls or success in their policies.

In 2009, Republicans in congress immediately sought to blockade Obama's policies in entirety.

In 2017, we see the same just with more street presence.

I see Republicans bash the "Obama" economy in November then gleefully report on stock market upswings as of January.

I see Democrats think any type of tax cut on individuals or corporations is a tax cut "on the rich" - despite the fact that we have some of the highest corp tax rates and we have almost no effective fed taxation on anyone other than the upper middle class to upper class.

A sizable portion of the country does not want the country to succeed. They want their party to succeed.

I look forward to seeing what democracy actually looks like one day.

Daniel Jackson said...

I gave up on National Palestinian Radio many years ago.

This skreed from the Gauche has been coming for years. The personal humiliation tactics became virile under Obama who became He Who Must Not Be Questioned.

Living in other parts of the world gives one a very different perspective; although, truth be told, foreign media are unabashed liars of the first degree.

Read blogs, look at pictures, and make up your own mind like an educated college Junior. I mean, that IS the purpose of a university education?

FullMoon said...

roesch/voltaire said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Robert there there is awful ( Clinton) and more awful (Trump) and as long as some of his critics focus on real issues like his appointment of a temperamental unsound person like Flynn or grifter like DeVoss who bought her way into office,....



Thanks for that. Been awhile since the subject of Bill and Hillarys 250-500 1,000,000 dollar speeches has come up. The actual distressing part is that you were actually a teacher, and perhaps influential. Of course, being a teacher explains your fear of DeVos.

Michael K said...

Trump's past suggests that he is capable of moderation on most issues, but too great of a forced influx to his camp will remove negotiating room for the moderates

I still harbor some reservations about Trump. Mainly I worry that the hysterical left could push him toward a Huey Long type populist position and they would have no alternative that could oppose it.

So far, his children and their good sense, and his personal abstemiousness reassure me but the left could create the monster they say they see.

AReasonableMan said...

Liberals may feel more energized but right-wingers aren't feeling quite the same burn that they used to:

"President Trump, who remains popular on the right, has mused about a replacement plan that is even more expansive than the original. The conservative news media are focused more on Mr. Trump's near-daily skirmishes with Democrats and reporters, among others, than on policy issues like health care.

[…] From deeply conservative districts in the South and the West to the more moderate parts of the Northeast, Republicans in Congress say there is significantly less intensity among opponents of the law than when Mr. Obama was in office.

"I hear more concerns than before about 'You're going to repeal it, and we're all going to lose insurance' because they don't think we're going to replace it," said Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican who represents a conservative district in Idaho. […]

"I was here in 2009 and 2010, and we're not getting the anti-Obamacare calls like that," said Representative Brett Guthrie, a Kentucky Republican who is on one of the committees tasked with rewriting the law. "I think people are going to hold us accountable for making sure we not only repeal, but we have a law in place that creates a better opportunity for people."

The demands from conservative-leaning constituents in districts like Mr. Guthrie's are plainly shifting. In a nationwide CBS News poll last month, 53 percent of Republicans said they wanted to change the law to make it work better while 41 percent said they wanted to abolish it."

Unknown said...

Trumpies vs Liberals in a nutshell:

Trumpie: "I have no problem with the poor it's the ones that have 5 kids from different Dads and Welch off the government"

Liberal: "President Trump has 5 kids from three different Moms, took five bankruptcies and hasn't paid taxes in 19 years."

MaxedOutMama said...

Robert Cook - were you serious when you wrote I'm referring to those who say they feel reluctant to state their views. If they are confident in their views, why be reluctant to state them? One doesn't have to get into fights with people simply because they hold different political views. But one also doesn't have feel intimidated to state what one's views are.

Because if you support charter/voucher schools, you need special protection? Because if you don't agree with same-sex marriage, you lose your CEO position? Because if at Yale, you disagree that students should be told what Halloween costumes to wear or not wear, you will lose your position? People are afraid to speak their minds because those who disagree with them will try to hunt them down and destroy them. The article referenced is suggesting that this approach (engaged in by the left) is backfiring. You seem to remain serenely unaware of what is truly happening in this country.

Michael K said...

In 2009, Republicans in congress immediately sought to blockade Obama's policies in entirety.

I remember a brief period when there was a possibility of cooperation. He had a dinner with conservtives before he was inaugurated.

Then, Paul Ryan tried to raise a suggestion at a joint legislative meeting and was cut off with "I won."

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.


That was the end of cooperation and then, two years later, the GOP took the House. Obama could have been willing to listen.

He wasn't. And here we are.

Achilles said...

"I'll just answer from my personal perspective (about how it affects me): Yes."

From my perspective after Trump took out Bush in the primary I was sold. He was rough around the edges but he clearly understood the republican voters. I supported him rather early on because I thought he would take the media down and break the Overton window the left used to keep certain topics out of discussion.

For a while I would have been happy with either trump or Cruz but when they went head to head Trump was clearly more mature and effective. Cruz proceeded to self immolate and end his national political career.

What has happened since has probably been the best case scenario. I would prefer if Trump started discussing the massive disruptions coming to our economy but no politician is likely to tell the voters how screwed they are.

Michael K said...

I would prefer if Trump started discussing the massive disruptions coming to our economy but no politician is likely to tell the voters how screwed they are.

Yes, I am hoping he can hold it off a few years. By that time it won't matter to me.

My only concern is that my mother lived to 103.

Jay Elink said...

@Robert Cook: ah, the "dittohead" thing again.

NEVER MIND that Rush listeners know the term means, "I too like your program, Rush", and NOT "I mindlessly agree with everything you say, Rush."

Only the "maniacal cuckoo clock that the Left has transformed itself into"* think and act that way.

*hat tip to Cracker Emcee

Achilles said...

Blogger mockturtle said...

"Agree 100%. And I don't see Trump as either Democrat or Republican. I think he could have won as in Independent."

Exactly. The GOPe was still pushing amnesty and growing government.

Achilles said...

Blogger Unknown said...
" vs Liberals in a nutshell:

Trumpie: "I have no problem with the poor it's the ones that have 5 kids from different Dads and Welch off the government"

Liberal: "President Trump has 5 kids from three different Moms, took five bankruptcies and hasn't paid taxes in 19 years.""

Idiot liberal flows straight from projection to confirmation bias. Wonders why nobody ever listens to them and why people call them idiots. Is so stupid they need to be reminded to breathe.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Idiot liberal flows straight from projection to confirmation bias. Wonders why nobody ever listens to them and why people call them idiots. Is so stupid they need to be reminded to breathe."

I am sure that in "Unknown's" little world, that "nutshell" comment is considered clever.

In a nutshell, Unknown illustrates exactly why the left is losing.

sparrow said...

FWIW Cook deserves some credit for engaging conservative seriously; it's rare.

As buwaya pointed out there are real social consequences for being a known conservative in professional circles. As a scientist my options are limited; as a staff scientist I can remain undercover, because I'm less important. If I were faculty on the tenure track it'd be impossible to fly below the radar. To be fair getting tenured (in my field) is hard enough on the merits given the competition for grants, add to that the social disapproval and your inviable.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Cookie is a Leftist in NYC. Althouse is probably his only peep outside a fairly thick bubble.

AReasonableMan said...

CPAC cancels Milo Yiannopoulos’ keynote address after controversy over comments about sex with minors.

Apparently CPAC was unwilling to become NAMBLA.

Drago said...

Sorry ARM. The complete video and transcript are out on that.

Another Fake News fumble which you and certain "lifelong republicans" fell for. How many weeks past its "sell by" date were you still pushing "golden showers"?

It never gets old does it? So, big surprise, here we go again.

Btw, as a journalist Milo actually exposed pederasts.

You know, guys like Polanski that the left gives standing ovations to.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Milo's rebuttal:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/19/milo-angrily-denies-defending-sex-abuse-a-vile-and-disgusting-crime/

“I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst,” Yiannopoulos stated. “There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.”

He added that he has exposed three pedophiles in his reporting: Louise Mensch’s former business partner Luke Bozier, anti-Gamergate activist Nicholas Nyberg and tech reporter Chris Leydon.

The Breitbart writer also penned a lengthy attack on pedophiles and their alleged progressive defenders in 2015."

Milo has been very critical of the GOPe and National Review as well as of the Left. It's no surprise to me at all that they would dig up something to attack him with. He's becoming dangerously popular.

I guess ARM doesn't think the timing of these "revelations" are suspicious in the slightest, no sirree.

J. Farmer said...

Polarization is going to be the name of the game going froward in wonderfully diversified America. Mitt Romney was about as genial a nominee as we've had in living memory, and that didn't help him one iota from being smeared and run through the establishment slime machine. Barack Obama was a fairly bland, boring, corporatist New Democrat in the mold of Bill Clinton, and he was routinely depicted as a far-leftist extremist. The left/right dichotomy is barely even useful anymore when trying to discuss modern American politics. Globalist vs. nationalist is a better framework.

@Michael K:

Yes, I am hoping he can hold it off a few years. By that time it won't matter to me.

Aren't you concerned with the world your children and grandchildren will inhabit?


Ron Winkleheimer said...

I've got a couple of friends, otherwise quite sensible fellows, who have the Trump Derangement Syndrome pretty bad. One of them shows up at a weekly get together and always has an incoherent story to share proofing what a evil, stupid, crazy guy Trump is and looks around triumphantly (yeah, that was deliberate.) Most of the people in the group are pretty conservative and think Trump is doing a fair to good job so far. But nobody bothers to argue with the liberals in the group because we know:

1) It will do no good
2) It will get acrimonious, a good natured exchange of differing views is impossible

Another friend once got very angry at me while we were discussing charity because he felt I made a distinction between the deserving poor and the non-deserving. He actually raised his voice at me. And this is a person who knows about as much about poverty as you can know from growing up in exclusive neighborhoods and attending exclusive private academies cause his family was filthy rich.

Apparently my experience of growing up poor and starting to work at around 12 to put money in the family kitty and having relatives who are actually poor was immaterial.

Unknown said...

Liberals vs Trumpies via Aaron Sorkin:

“We’ve been told that as coastal elites, we’re something less than real Americans and that we’re out of touch.

If you find it mind-boggling that living and working in the two largest cities in America makes you less than a real American, you’re not the one who’s out of touch.

If you don’t find it remotely credible that three to five million people voted illegally in our last election, you’re not the one who’s out of touch.

If you don’t think climate change is a global hoax being perpetrated by unscrupulous Chinese scientists in cahoots with every other scientist in a cunning long con to get grant money, you’re not the one who’s out of touch.

If you don’t think the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News and CNN lie with impunity and that the only trustworthy new source is Fox and Friends, you’re not the one who’s out of touch.

And if you don’t think that turning away people who are seeking a safe haven from unspeakable brutality is a morally defensible idea, then you’re not the one who’s less than a real American.”

J. Farmer said...

@AReasonableMan:

Apparently CPAC was unwilling to become NAMBLA.

Milo was not describing pedophilia, which is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. What he was describing is something less commonly known as ephebophilia, or sexual attraction to adolescents, typically between 15-19 years old. A post-pusbecent adolescent with all of their secondary sexual characteristics is virtually indistinguishable (from a purely physical point of view) from an adult in their mid-20s.

The issue is one of legal consent, but that is always going to be an arbitrary boundary created for the necessity of law. There are plenty of 16 years olds with the maturity, guile, and insight to consent to a sexual act, and there are plenty of 20 years olds who aren't. These boundaries are necessary for law, but a man in his late 20s who has sex with a 15 or 16-year-old is massively different from a man in his late 20s who has sex with a 9-year-old.

Drago said...

I find the latest Milo fake news story far less interesting than the newest lefty claim (via the laughable The New Republic) that somehow the republicans are the party of eugenics.

The insanity on the left continues to accelerate.

AReasonableMan said...

It is CPAC that cancelled Milo not a bunch of leftists. CPAC. Can't get much more pure right-wing than that.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown thinks Aaron Sorkin, a Hollywood producer, speaks for Middle America.

#ThatsWhyYouGotTrump

It's hilarious how you keep proving our points every single time you post.

jdniner said...

My mom, a longtime Obama supporter, went and voted for Trump. I think that is the first Republican she has ever voted for. She liked Obama because she wanted wars and violence to end. I think she sees Trump as the best chance to end violence in the country. She sees the rioters on TV and is horrified that these people exist in our country. And that we let them riot. She sounds almost like Rush Limbaugh now.

By what she saw she never believed Trump was violent. She didn't care about any sexist comments he made. She did look at his kids and thought this was how she would have like to raise her kids. Not in wealth, but in hard work and respect.

jdniner said...

CPAC is nevertrumpers.

Tank said...

When the left shows its true colors, it repels more people than it attracts.

Triangle Man said...

Aren't the moderate Republicans just part of the swamp? They're busy pandering to Trump so he will sign the legislation they're whoring for.

exiledonmainstreet said...

AReasonableMan said...
It is CPAC that cancelled Milo not a bunch of leftists."

You didn't read my post.

I said:

"Milo has been very critical of the GOPe and National Review as well as of the Left."

Despite all the exchanges here between a certain "lifelong Republican" and Drago and Achilles, you haven't yet grasped that there is a divide on the right between the GOP Establishment and the Trump supporters?

You really, really don't pay attention then. CPAC is as GOPe as it gets.

Known Unknown said...

"But one also doesn't have feel intimidated to state what one's views are."

Not here, certainly. Not most places. But at Berkely?

I saw people put to the ground for daring to have a voice. I saw a girl sprayed in the face because she had a red hat on (that said "Make Bitcoin Great Again."

I work in a creative industry. I am horribly outnumbered. Being a Libertarian gives me a little more wiggle room because most people don't understand what that means. I don't dare speak politics at work. I just nod and smile when the comforted progressives among us make snide remarks or jokes or outlandish declarations. I don't have the time nor the energy to take on the horde.

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "It is CPAC that cancelled Milo not a bunch of leftists. CPAC. Can't get much more pure right-wing than that"

Milo is a terrible fit for that group and that conference.

Milo is a far too transgressive provocateur for that setting and its purpose. The original invitation seemed completely ill advised.

Milo has said about a thousand things that make him a perfect choice to speak on campus but the worst choice to speak at CPAC.

One can only assume some folks at CPAC got caught up in his recent higher profile activities.

Unknown said...

And you people still think this Milo creep is wonderful, how far the Party of Family Values has fallen. You have really lost your moorings.

Also to Exiledonmainstreet, be aware that there are several different Unknowns that are liberals that post here.


Milo bragging about giving good head because of Father Michael

Known Unknown said...

ARM - we ought to have at least four major political parties in the United States. Progressive, Alt-Right?, Center-Left and Center-Right.

DNC and GOPe are the center-lefts and rights. They exist simply to hold power. The other two seek to influence and disrupt their counterparts. The Bernie Bros and maybe the Breitbarters (which is hilarious because Andrew Breitbart was more a libertarian than a reactionary conservative.) would play those parts.

Both the DNC and the GOPe have ignored their bases. The GOPe much more. The DNC has moved left since the days of Bill Clinton. Now, with Hillary out of Graft City, its influence may wane even more.



Drago said...

Triangle Man: "Aren't the moderate Republicans just part of the swamp? They're busy pandering to Trump so he will sign the legislation they're whoring for."

Was it your intention to completely contradict yourself in just 2 lines, or are you simply helplessly confused and given to incoherent blather?

Achilles said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
"It is CPAC that cancelled Milo not a bunch of leftists. CPAC. Can't get much more pure right-wing than that."

You can't get much more GOPe than that. The only people who are losing as much as you leftists are the crony right. CPAC is going to fade just like NRO, Heritage, Weekly Standard etc.

We have taken the party back from the Oligarchs. Nobody out here cares about their little cruises and parties. After what CPAC did to Trump during the primary banning Milo will be the end for them. They had a choice and they chose wrong.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Also to Exiledonmainstreet, be aware that there are several different Unknowns that are liberals that post here."

All of them stupid. But you're the stupid Inga Unknown.

Ho hum about Milo, who was molested as a teen and made a crass joke about it. I saw the vid of that talk about a week ago.

He was the victim in that case, not the victimizer. He chose to make a bad joke about it.

Tell me why the Left defends Roman Polanski, who raped and drugged a 13 year old?



Known Unknown said...

One can only assume some folks at CPAC got caught up in his recent higher profile activities.

Yeah, CPAC was dumb. They're still courting the evangelicals, and Milo certainly isn't for them.

Drago said...

Unknown: "And you people still think this Milo creep is wonderful, how far the Party of Family Values has fallen. You have really lost your moorings"

It is standard practice on the left to run hard with already debunked claims for about 2 months, on average.

I see we are at day 1 for this latest entrant.

Btw, don't you have a "Free Roman Polanski" to attend?

Known Unknown said...

"Party of Family Values"

Wait. I thought Family Values were bad. I can't keep up with the cognitive dissonance.

exiledonmainstreet said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
"Also to Exiledonmainstreet, be aware that there are several different Unknowns that are liberals that post here."

All of them stupid. But you're the stupid Inga Unknown."

See, the stupid non-Inga Unknowns would not have singled me out. Madame Trollyou is evidently still recovering from her Saturday night box wine meltdown and so wants to make sure I know that not all Unknowns are the Inga Unknown!

Yancey Ward said...

A quick poll for the readers:

An Unknown wrote the following:

"most interesting thing about that article is the comments are disabled. I don't think the Times wants to test those waters too deeply."

What is the political leanings of this Unknown? Why do you think the comments were disabled?

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

It is standard practice on the left to run hard with already debunked claims for about 2 months, on average.

Well, Milo said what he said; it's just being spun in a different context. He did advocate adult men having sex with adolescent males. That is not pedophilia, but it is a kind of sexual arrangement that is not often discussed rationally in mainstream American discourse, particularly when it's homosexuals. But back in 2000, the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Amor, and Best Screenplay Awards went to American Beauty, a movie about Kevin Spacey becoming sexually obsessed with his teenage daughter's friend.

Stephen said...

Your point of view is interesting and worth elaborating on. As someone who strongly opposes most of Trump's agenda, it would make a real difference to me to hear from a thoughtful moderate which points of criticism and opposition you think are fair and not likely to alienate, and which you think are over the top and drive you toward Trump. A few examples:

1. Attacks on Trump's family: You think, and I agree, that this is generally a bad idea.

2. Gorsuch: I assume you think that moderate Democrats should not oppose. I tend to agree.

3. Conflict of Interest: I would say that failure to disclose one's taxes, coupled with failure to divest one's world wide business or even establish a blind trust, raises serious and continuing questions, and opens up a wide range of legitimate criticism and skepticism. What do you think?

4. Russia: You dismissed this early on, but given the further evidence that has emerged, including Flynn's contacts and lying about it, Trump's reluctance to fire him and willingness to keep Pence in the dark, Trump's continuing excuses for Putin and personal attacks on our allies, and the pre-election contacts between his campaign and Soviet intelligence, do you still feel that Russia/Putin is is a sore loser issue?

5. Foreign policy generally: do you feel safer with Trump in office? Are his apparent ignorance, volatility and inability to hire anyone who ever opposed him fair subjects of criticism?

6. Falsity: I know you hate to call anyone a liar, because as you've said, you can't read someone's mind. I haven't noticed that you commented on his statement that the press is the enemy of the people. So is there a critical framing of Trump's evident and repeated disregard for facts that is persuasive to you?

7. The Roll Out Order: I know you believe that Trump will ultimately get some form of his order through if he does his homework, and so do I. Do you actually think, though, that the order is actually good policy? That the net balance is to make us safer? That the roll out inspires confidence is the competence and basic decency of the administration? Are these legitimate subjects of criticism?

8. Partisanship: Trump keeps saying things that are untrue about his electoral college margin and the reason why he lost the popular vote. In fact, his electoral college mandate was on the small side, and he lost the popular vote by a pretty large margin (the last election where someone who lost the popular vote that badly was elected, the fix was in). But he didn't keep anyone on (as Obama did) and he has appointed only Republicans to his cabinet, many of them (Sessions, Pruitt, DeVos, Carson) from the very far right wing of the party. His chosen foreign policy advisor was, as you noted, an active promoter of Clinton conspiracy theories. Trump routinely calls Schumer names in public. He can't find the phone number of the Black Congressional caucus. Is this a legitimate subject of criticism?

You get the idea, anyway. I and I am sure many other liberal readers of your list would love to see your thoughts on the scope of criticism of Trump that would be persuasive to embattled moderates.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yancey Ward, I think "Vance" wrote that comment. He is also an "Unknown" but normally signs his comments to ensure he isn't confused with the leftists. Sometimes he forgets though.

That comment makes too much sense to have been made by one of the other "Unknowns."

There would be lots of shrieking - from leftists - in the comments section of that article if comments were permitted.

mockturtle said...

If by 'moderate Republicans' you mean Neocons, we'd be better off without their support.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So maybe, just maybe mind you, its the people who get angry at people who have different views than theirs and attempt to shout down and obstruct the speech of those they disagree with, that equate differing views with violence and attempt to have discussion of the views suppressed under the rubric of "hate speech," and attempt to get those who disagree with them fired and shunned, again, just maybe those are the people who are unable to intelligently defend their views and they only hold them because of indoctrination? Maybe?

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
Milo is a terrible fit for that group and that conference.

Milo is a far too transgressive provocateur for that setting and its purpose. The original invitation seemed completely ill advised.


I am not defending the protests against Milo, which I oppose, but don't universities have the same right to make these same decisions for the same reasons as CPAC has?

exiledonmainstreet said...

J. Farmer: I think Paglia has said much the same thing, yet she has never gotten much flak for that, perhaps because she is a woman.

Static Ping said...

As was evident from my comments as the election approached, I really did not want Trump to be President, but given the choice among Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and, as Ace likes to call him, Egg McMuffin, I reluctantly supported Trump.

If I had known what was going to happen afterwards, I would have deleted the "reluctant" part. On a 1 to 10 scale, I considered Trump to be, at best, a 2 compared to Clinton's 1. You could convince me Trump was more of a 1.1. I'm still not sure what to make of Trump, but if he's going to govern like he has for the first month, then he would be at least a retroactive 5 with potential for growth. Meanwhile, Clinton and her "Resistance" are somewhere in negative numbers.

Known Unknown said...

I see a lot of posts about the 'terrorist attack' in Sweden. That's not what Trump was referring to, obviously.

I sought out a non-right news source to find out more about the supposed rise in crime in Sweden. I suppose the first woman interviewed here is just a racist hick. Of course The Guardian offers more concern about the rise of the far-right in these places than any of the potential root causes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/24/sweden-immigration-far-right-asylum

AReasonableMan said...

J. Farmer said...
But back in 2000, the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Amor, and Best Screenplay Awards went to American Beauty, a movie about Kevin Spacey becoming sexually obsessed with his teenage daughter's friend.


If you recall, that didn't end well. Classic morality play.

Known Unknown said...

"I am not defending the protests against Milo, which I oppose, but don't universities have the same right to make these same decisions for the same reasons as CPAC has?"

One is a private organization. The other is a public one (Berkely).

I doubt CPAC attendees would've smashed windows in response to Milo speaking.

exiledonmainstreet said...

ARM, are universities supposed to be places where "transgressive provocateurs" are not to be heard?

They seem perfectly fine with left-wing "transgressions."

Drago said...

ARM: "I am not defending the protests against Milo, which I oppose, but don't universities have the same right to make these same decisions for the same reasons as CPAC has?"

No. See if you can figure out why.

Achilles said...

Known Unknown said...
ARM - we ought to have at least four major political parties in the United States. Progressive, Alt-Right?, Center-Left and Center-Right.

DNC and GOPe are the center-lefts and rights. They exist simply to hold power. The other two seek to influence and disrupt their counterparts. The Bernie Bros and maybe the Breitbarters (which is hilarious because Andrew Breitbart was more a libertarian than a reactionary conservative.) would play those parts.

Both the DNC and the GOPe have ignored their bases. The GOPe much more. The DNC has moved left since the days of Bill Clinton. Now, with Hillary out of Graft City, its influence may wane even more.


Right now there are 3 parties: The GOP, the Oligarch Pets, and the Bernie fans. The republican party is now run by Trump and his supporters. There are holdouts like McCain but the normal donors like the CoC and the DC/neocon republicans bailed in the election and supported Hillary. They were always bought and paid for and right now the DNC is where the Oligarch Pets live.

The Bernie left is out in the cold. They got screwed in the primary and nobody listens to them. Every now and then Soros pays a few of them to dance around in pussy hats and throw some bricks through starbucks windows. They represent the majority of democrats but they have no leadership. They need to take their party back like we did after Romney was forced on us.

J. Farmer said...

@exiledonmainstreet:

J. Farmer: I think Paglia has said much the same thing, yet she has never gotten much flak for that, perhaps because she is a woman.

She is also a lesbian, and there is not, as far am I am aware, a big subculture of lesbian women being primarily sexually attracted to adolescent females. It is mostly a male phenomenon, and in the gay world, it is quite a robust phenomenon, including it's own nomenclature (e.g. chicken, chickenhawk, etc.).

Drago said...

ARM: "If you recall, that didn't end well. Classic morality play."

Classic Marxist #Fake-Anti-Suburbia morality play.

In other news, "The West Wing" was not a documentary.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Partisanship

I'm for it. My perception is that whenever the federal government decides to do something bipartisan it means they're getting ready to screw everyone.

I voted for Donald Trump because I wanted someone who would take my side. The GOPe talks about doing what is best for the nation, but it turns out that doing what is right for the nation aligns rather closely with doing what is profitable for the establishment.

Also, why do Schumer and Warren always look like someone is holding a turd under their nose?

Unknown said...

Milo, the guy every Trumpist was tripping over themselves to defend a couple of weeks ago. CPAC disinvited him for the same reasons universities did.

"CNN anchor Jake Tapper is ripping the Conservative Political Action Conference's decision to invite far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the annual meeting.

In a series of tweets Sunday night, Tapper slammed the invite after a video surfaced of the Breitbart editor appearing to defend pedophilia.

Tapper said he initially wanted to avoid discussing the revelation, but was urged to speak out by an unnamed friend, who Tapper said is a victim of sexual abuse.

In the video, Yiannopoulos, who is gay, discusses how relationships with older men can be beneficial for young homosexuals who may not have support at home, and later mentions his own sexual abuse as a teenager.

“We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults,” Yiannopoulos says in the video.

“In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men – the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship – those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents,” he continues."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320345-tapper-blasts-cpac-for-inviting-milo-to-speak

exiledonmainstreet said...

"She is also a lesbian, and there is not, as far am I am aware, a big subculture of lesbian women being primarily sexually attracted to adolescent females."

True, although "The Vagina Monologues" contains a scene of a female teacher seducing a teen-aged female student. That would be considered outrageous and disgusting if it was a hetero or gay male scenario, but hey grrrrl power!

J. Farmer said...

@AReasonableMan:

If you recall, that didn't end well. Classic morality play.

He was murdered by his closeted gay neighbor, and after he decides against having sex with the girl. Not exactly a classic morality play.

traditionalguy said...

The Professional Fake Narrative creators are the enemy of the American Middle Class who are demanding that peace and prosperity be restored here. Those people picked Trump to be their President and do that job on their behalf.

In selecting Trump they have rejected the narratives spun to excuse the disasters caused by Bush 1, Clinton 1, Bush 2 and Clinton 2. Muslim Obama got a pass because he cashed in MLK's hard earned white guilt card.

But now it is our hard earned turn.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown Inga said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Krumhorn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

"The left" (which now includes libertarians apparently), is borrowing from the Tea Party playbook. Was there much handwringing about a backlash when the Tea Party protests were in full swing.

Tea Party managed to avoid riots and calls for military coups. They also had more civic knowledge than CNN contributor Sally Kohn.

AReasonableMan said...

Stephen said...
I am sure many other liberal readers of your list would love to see your thoughts on the scope of criticism of Trump that would be persuasive to embattled moderates.


Good luck with that. Nice post.

Static Ping said...

AReasonableMan said... I am not defending the protests against Milo, which I oppose, but don't universities have the same right to make these same decisions for the same reasons as CPAC has?

This is a good question.

From a legal perspective, I think a private university certainly has this right. A public institution does not. Given that the courts seem to think that anyone who takes government money is a public institution, that makes very few schools that can say no. That's why the argument is always about security and costs and not about "we don't like their kind around these parts." I'm not sure how much I agree with that legal finding, but it is what it is.

That said, universities are supposed to be places of learning with free flowing speech and ideas. Any university that bars ideas from their campuses has rejected the basic premise of their existence. It is corruption.

J. Farmer said...

@exiledonmainstreet:

True, although "The Vagina Monologues" contains a scene of a female teacher seducing a teen-aged female student.

I think that was more of what a heterosexual feminist (Eve Ensler) thinks of as a lesbian fantasy.

AReasonableMan said...

J. Farmer said...
Not exactly a classic morality play.


The impure thoughts did him in.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

CPAC disinvited him for the same reasons universities did.

In a general way, sure. Because they don't like something he said, even while they expend the least amount of energy in trying to actually understand it. Milo was actually talking about something that is quite widespread in the gay community, but given that the mainstream media can only discuss things in terms of victimology (pedophilia, abuse, etc.), it's no wonder what he was saying got totally distorted.

Henry said...

In sympathy to my fellow liberals, I don't read their posts.

J. Farmer said...

@AReasonableMan:

The impure thoughts did him in.

Perhaps it's been a while since you've seen the movie, but I think that's a wild misreading of the film. At the end, the character is given the chance to make his fantasy a reality: to sleep with the object of his desire. Given that chance, he rebukes her. Instead of sex they connect on an emotional level over the similarity of their problems. It's redemptive. He is then murdered by a man who earlier made a gay pass at him but was rejected. The death was a result of the neighbor's inability to accept his homosexuality. I don't particularly buy the movie's narrative, but it seemed to me much more about repressed sexuality than it did in telling a morality tale.

mockturtle said...

J. Farmer asserts: She is also a lesbian, and there is not, as far am I am aware, a big subculture of lesbian women being primarily sexually attracted to adolescent females. It is mostly a male phenomenon, and in the gay world, it is quite a robust phenomenon, including it's own nomenclature (e.g. chicken, chickenhawk, etc.).

Back in High School there were a couple of lesbian gym teachers, one of whom had an affair with a student. Frankly, I didn't like showering in front of these dykes. And I just read of another instance yesterday in some school between a female coach and a 15-year-old student. It may not be as predatory as the male version but certainly not unheard of.

And wasn't it Sappho, herself, who penned, "Oh what heartaches will abide when youth and age lie side by side"?

Krumhorn said...

They refuse to see that much of what Trump will do Hillary would also have done, (i.e., make the world ever safer and more profitable for the rapacious oligarchs, for whom too much is never enough, and expand our criminal military catastrophes abroad).

I think I understand your point Cook, but you may be wrong about Trump's views of the "rapacious oligarchs". I get the impression that he feels as strongly about the evils of crony capitalism (a sin widely practiced by Republicans as Democrats) as I do. Of course, wealthy people will benefit by reduced taxes and regulations, but the point is that the rest of us will too. Call it trickle down if you wish, but it is an accurate characterization of how a vibrant economy works. That's how wealth is created.

It about promoting conditions in which high net worth individuals feel safe about making risky investments. They can tolerate the loss of their investment capital, but they cannot tolerate writing a check when they cannot calculate risk and cannot project a reasonable return for their risk. While I would be perfectly content in seeing Goldman Sachs reduced to a local credit union (and his Treasury choice does not, therefor, give me comfort), I do not think that Trump will play the crony game since he owes none of them anything.

Trump is a wealthy man, but he does not identify with the oligarchs of our society. In fact, I suspect he is not their friend.

- Krumhorn

Unknown said...

The anti Trump sentiment is growing world wide. It'll only grow stronger the longer he's in office. It's not a concern to us if it also energizes Trumpists. It doesn't matter.

"Activists are planning another protest against US President Donald Trump in central London tonight.

The demonstration will coincide with the House of Commons debate on whether the President should be granted a state visit to the UK.

Tonight's action follows numerous other marches and protests against Trump in the capital, sparked in large part by the US leader's travel ban on visitors from seven Middle Eastern countries, which has since been blocked by the courts.

Protests have been taking place around the UK throughout today, and a large demo is planned for Parliament Square in London from 4pm until 9pm. Caroline Lucas MP and political journalist Owen Jones are among the speakers planned for this evening's event."

http://www.cityam.com/259442/theres-another-anti-trump-protest-planned-central-london

Achilles said...

Stephen said...
Your point of view is interesting and worth elaborating on. As someone who strongly opposes most of Trump's agenda, it would make a real difference to me to hear from a thoughtful moderate which points of criticism and opposition you think are fair and not likely to alienate, and which you think are over the top and drive you toward Trump. A few examples:

Here we go...

1. Attacks on Trump's family: You think, and I agree, that this is generally a bad idea.

It is right out of the communist fascist handbook. It is pure intimidation and thuggery. "Generally a bad idea" is not sufficient.

2. Gorsuch: I assume you think that moderate Democrats should not oppose. I tend to agree.

pfft.

3. Conflict of Interest: I would say that failure to disclose one's taxes, coupled with failure to divest one's world wide business or even establish a blind trust, raises serious and continuing questions, and opens up a wide range of legitimate criticism and skepticism. What do you think?

As soon as Nancy Pelosi is brought up on charges of insider trading I will take you seriously. There is unlimited graft in DC. Everyone in DC seems to get rich while producing absolutely nothing of value. Trump actually produces things. Is this your quibble?

4. Russia: You dismissed this early on, but given the further evidence that has emerged, including Flynn's contacts and lying about it, Trump's reluctance to fire him and willingness to keep Pence in the dark, Trump's continuing excuses for Putin and personal attacks on our allies, and the pre-election contacts between his campaign and Soviet intelligence, do you still feel that Russia/Putin is is a sore loser issue?

What is Russia's angle getting Trump elected? Their choices were a nationalist spouting "America First" and promising to open up hydrocarbon production and a corrupt cliche of a bought and paid for politician who had already sold a Russian company 20% of North American uranium in a clearly crony deal that was ok'd because they gave her foundation around a 100 million dollars. She entered the office already clearly compromised and she was promising to "fight global warming" to boot and shut down as much American drilling as possible.

There is no there there. Trump is already opening up more drilling. If you have any knowledge of Russia's situation at all their economy is 100% tied to the price of hydrocarbon extractables. This is a joke line pushed by evil people and believed by idiots.

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

Unknown said...
And you people still think this Milo creep is wonderful, how far the Party of Family Values has fallen. You have really lost your moorings.


You guys used to mock the Right for being too uptight, too Puritanical, etc.
Now you guys want to shame the Right for not being uptight enough, not been sufficiently Puritanical, etc.

Family Values were toxic, sexist, and anti-LGBTQ. Now the lack of Family Values is suddenly supposed to be some big sin.

Milo's not my favorite, but it's pretty rich listening to that kind of criticism now after years of the other kind.

tim in vermont said...

Here is an example of the kind of charming stuff that will work to win over moderates.'

Got it off of a Facebook feed, it made me feel all snugly towards Democrats.

"We hate Trump because he's a racist
You hated Obama because you're a racist"

My suggestion is that you get that printed on millions of bumper stickers and hand them out everywhere.

You will be sure to win the next election.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

It may not be as predatory as the male version but certainly not unheard of.

In terms of sexuality, I would be cautious in saying anything is "unheard of." I do not doubt that there are older women who pursue younger women. My point was that it is nowhere near as a robust and as well defined as among men. Let me give an example, a "chickenhawk" is gay slang for an older man who primarily prefers sex with a adolescent males. I am aware of no such corresponding terms for lesbians, because I don't think the phenomenon is as pronounced.

Also, I don't think it is quite right to necessarily describe it as "predatory," though of course an element of that also exists. But that presumes that there are not gay adolescent males who are not receptive to sex with older man; there are, in fact. That brings up another gay slang term, "daddies," that is a term that younger gay men usually apply to older men they are sexually attracted to.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...The anti Trump sentiment is growing world wide. It'll only grow stronger the longer he's in office. It's not a concern to us if it also energizes Trumpists. It doesn't matter.

"We care more about public opinion in foreign countries than in changing the minds/votes of the people who beat us in the last election."
Smart; go with that.

Mary Beth said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

No, liberals, this is not helping Trump at all.

Just keep doing what you are doing, only louder and more in people's faces.

That's the way to win hearts and minds.

2/20/17, 10:18 AM


This. And, if anyone disagrees with you, always begin your argument by telling them that they're stupid. Letting them know you are wiser, kinder, and an all-around better person will help convince them that your views are the only right views.

Unknown said...

"You guys used to mock the Right for being too uptight, too Puritanical, etc."

Homosexuality isn't pedophilia. It's high time rightists learned the difference.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
The anti Trump sentiment is growing world wide. It'll only grow stronger the longer he's in office. It's not a concern to us if it also energizes Trumpists. It doesn't matter.

Yes. This is perfect. Keep it up. Open borders and more sharia law are perfect planks in the DNC platform. That is what all people around the world want.

AReasonableMan said...

Static Ping said...
That said, universities are supposed to be places of learning with free flowing speech and ideas. Any university that bars ideas from their campuses has rejected the basic premise of their existence. It is corruption.


What about a representative from NAMBL, should he be feted on university campuses? He will certainly have controversial views.

Amadeus 48 said...

A couple of thoughts:
--Trump is going to succeed or fail based on whether the economy grows faster than it has been. A light regulatory touch (indicated by his cabinet appointments) will contribute to improving his chances.
--Tax policy will largely determined by what the Congress does. A nation with $20 trillion of on-the-books debt and another $80 trillion off the books (social security, medicare, and medicaid) is constrained by that debt. The GOP may shift the tax burden around, but it won't be reduced.
--Obamacare is a huge program that is failing by its own terms. No Republican ever voted for it, but the GOP will own any attempted fix. Fear permeates this issue. It killed the Dems in the states, the House, the Senate, and the presidency. A lot of low income people are heavily subsidized under Obamacare. The GOP needs to come up with a fix that improves the fiscal picture and is reasonably popular. That is a tough sell. Trump will provide no leadership on this issue; his default position so far is maybe we should go to single payer for everyone. Obamacare killed the Democrats and now it is coming for the GOP.
In short, everyone is focusing on the fun things (Trump is owned by the Russians. Trump hates the press, and they hate him. Fake news! MILO!) because the important things are not fun at all.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Hmmm.

Apparently all that shit matters to you.

Hillary will never be president.

That's what matters to most Trump voters.

Everything else is just cool.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

"The left" (which now includes libertarians apparently), is borrowing from the Tea Party playbook. Was there much handwringing about a backlash when the Tea Party protests were in full swing.

I remember all the handwringing about the Tea Party and Republican Party was always on the verge of "overreaching" or "going to far" or "overplaying their hand".

Then the media was very curious about the risk of alienating the middle. When was the last time we heard the press going on about that?

Unknown said...

""We care more about public opinion in foreign countries than in changing the minds/votes of the people who beat us in the last election."
Smart; go with that."


Any rightist who thinks we are an island and not interconnected to this very small world is an ignoramus.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 302   Newer› Newest»