This is the way NBC covers the President's trip to France:
“America came to save Europe in World War I, so we owe them this,” said Jean-Pierre Tourne, a teacher who was waiting for his friend outside the Louxor cinema in the northern Paris neighborhood of Barbes-Rochechouart. “We don’t understand why the Americans elected him, but he’s the U.S. President now,” he added.
Don't worry. NBC doesn't understand either. By the way, we also came to save Europe in World War II, but who's counting? Let us know if you need us again. We're always ready to help, whether you understand us or not.
“I understand why as president he’s invited,” said [Louis Marcodini, a 19-year-old history student at University of the Sorbonne], who was sitting on the banks of Canal St. Martin in Paris’s hip 10th arrondissement. “Symbolically it’s important. We have to respect history. But as an individual, as a man, he is not wanted here. He is not in our hearts.”...
"He's not welcome here. You're in working class Paris now. He'll be at the Élysée, at the Eiffel Tower, he's not going to come here," said Yacine Mac, who was standing outside the Barbes-Rochechouart metro station, a predominately north-African neighborhood.
Well, Mr. Mac, you might be interested to know that in America, he's not welcome among the elite, and it's the working class places where he held the rallies and spoke to the people who bonded with him and made him President.
Posts
214 comments:
1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»Well said, Ann!
mockturtle said...
Well said, Ann!
I'll second that. As I was reading it I found myself saying "Hell yes Ann!"
HuffPost is renting a bus to tour mid-America to see who those outside Manhattan live. Kind of like a safari.
IowaHawk is all over it. A must read.
"If you turn to your right, you will see an edifice the natives call 'Farm & Fleet'"
OOOOOH AAAAHHH
click click click clickity click
Thanks for white-splainin' to that dude.
As if non-white less off folks in America don't exist. Don't matter = not DJT voter.
Anywho, as best as I can tell rich folks don't like DJT much over here. At least in the States they get richer because of him. W/o that...there's nothing left to like, imho.
Need walk. This is a rarely-riled Althouse on display.
All they know is what they read in their media - don't blame them.
Strange to focus on WWI...must be trying to forget WWII altogether.
They'll always have Arc De Triomphe, conveniently encircled by a busy roundabout.
That's it..sounds too much like Arc de Trump.
The Record on Dems Spreading False Russian Info
I can understand an American fanboy of Trump saying, "Well, Europeans; if you don't understand the appeal of Trump, then just slag off."
But this is news. And in a news report, apart from cold polling numbers, a reporter would want to get quotes from everyday people who represent widely-held views. I know; it isn't quite science, but it's news reporting. The Fox News channel ain't exactly science either.
Pew reports that Trump's approval numbers among Europeans are at about 8 or 9 percent. So this report -- while it doesn't propose to try to explain any appeal of Trump as president, and why should it -- seems rather fairly representative of European feeling.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/pew-poll-obama-trump-clinton/
I know, I know; the Trumpkins have general contempt for how Europeans feel. Any lack of support among Europeans is a feature, and not a bug. And the ultimate insult: "Europeans loved Obama."
I get all of that.
What I don't get, is why any news organization would feel the need to promote/sell the presidency of Donald Trump. That's Sean Hannity's job. And that is one American job that Trump is determined to save.
I have never understood this "working-class" term.
Are you insinuating I did not work for my living?
But as an individual, as a man, he is not wanted here. He is not in our hearts.”...
Well, you'll just have to surrender. It's historic.
And we saved them in the decades after World War II. I mean, does anyone think the French army was going to keep the Reds out?
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...Thanks for white-splainin' to that dude.
--
Ain't no wayze tyred of laughing at statements like this.
Chuck - yes we know- you and the elite Europeans relate more to a Hillary Clinton and liar Obama.
"It was the video" and "Dark Money" Citizens United.
French Jews are fleeing to Israel in large numbers. The Frenchies are unhappy about it.
See, the French don't like their Jews leaving the country unless its in boxcars to Germany.
> Strange to focus on WWI...must be trying to forget WWII altogether.
WWI destroyed the country. France (and Europe) has never recovered from WWI.
Sure in WWII, the country was actually occupied, but that defeat was less costly than the victory in WWI. ("One more such victory and we are undone..")
Not welcome at Althouse? Meade will take him in.
Our former French exchange student, a responsible adult in most aspects of her life, has a Facebook post up "Show Your Rump to Trump." There is apparently a movement to encourage a massive mooning. I posted, saying "Please don't. He is our President." Her response was that we are free to do the same to her president.
So it goes.
Chuck thinks wistfully back to the days when Europeans lavished love on George W. Bush.
Trump will not be able to appoint any more judges until his poll numbers improve in Europe.
Literal laugh out loud.
NBC is playing to its audience, who assume many things, among which is that all Europeans are more knowing and caring than Americans, even about America. This is a major misunderstanding. Europe is full of dolts. Look at how they vote!
And they still have kings and queens lying around everywhere. They think they understand the rule of the people, but they don't have it in their heads or their hearts.
Neville Chamberlain was hip and cool compared to that Hard working Churchill.
Obama reminds me of Neville.
OT but:
"America came to save Europe in World War I, so we owe them this."
America going to Europe in World War I was our single biggest blunder of the 20th century. It alone qualifies Wilson for worst US president in history.
F NBC. Buncha pro-democrat party apparatchiks.
As my mother told me:
"There are two ways to succeed; you can be good, or you can get an education. Now, Hagar, you be sure you get an education, you hear me?"
J Farmer, I am still not clear why we entered WW1.
One theory out there is that The Great War was so devastating to all sides....and a trench warfare gridlock....that if we wouldn't have come in and tipped the scales, a mutually agreeable negotiated peace may have occurred. No German hyperinflation. No Hitler taking over.
The American President which they welcomed 100 years ago was the Captain of Battery D in the 129th Field Artillery of the US Army, from Independence, Missouri. His men risked their lives in Artillery Duels along the line that stopped La Bosche 70 miles outside Paris, and thus won the War itself. He then stopped the Communist invasion plans cold by the The Marshall Plan and the "impossible" Berlin Airlift.
And I expect nobody in France respected Captain Harry either.
The European answer to this American bragging about coming over to save us from ourselves is: "Yeah, but you always wait to see who is going to win before you come!"
"Yeah, but you always wait to see who is going to win before you come!"
That's the Italians. And to a certain extent, the Swedes.
David, she should try going into one of those North African neighborhoods in Paris and showing her rump there, as a protest against the many Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred in France. "Moon Mohammed" would be a bit riskier though.
Does she have a nice butt? I'm sure The Donald has no objection to seeing asses showing off their asses if those derrieres belong to pretty young women. The wrinkled old asses of aging Parisian leftists looking to relive the heady days of May '68 are another matter.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Chuck - yes we know- you and the elite Europeans relate more to a Hillary Clinton and liar Obama.
"It was the video" and "Dark Money" Citizens United.
That is such a freaking ironic gripe, when aimed at me. I've done nothing but praise Citizens United v FEC and SpeechNow v FEC. I've never written one word of support for any Clinton. And unlike one prominent bloggress, I never supported, and certainly never voted for, Barack Obama. I was working for the Republicans in 2008 and 2102.
There must be some tiny switch in the heads of Trump's most ardent supporters that causes them to lose their minds when anyone -- especially any Republican -- criticizes Trump.
I already said that I get it, if Trumpkins want to celebrate the fact that Europeans fear and loathe Trump. Go ahead and celebrate! Just don't say that it is great but also untrue all at the same time.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Neville Chamberlain was hip and cool compared to that Hard working Churchill.
I know it's verboten to say these days, but Chamberlain was probably more correct than Churchill in the scheme of things. Appeasement would have been a much better strategy for the UK than making an alliance with Poland. Pat Buchanan makes a persuasive, but not all together convincing, argument in Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. For one, Buchanan makes a lot of use of Tuchman's The Guns of August, a book that I think sucks as an explanation for the outbreak of the First World War.
NBC= Nothing But Cant
What I don't get, is why any news organization would feel the need to promote/sell the presidency of Donald Trump.
Why would it be the job of any news organization to attack the presidency of Donald Trump? (Apparently, that's your job, Mr. Lifelong Republican.)
I don't begrudge you your laugh, harrogate. These are tough times for you. You have to comfort yourself with such scraps.
There is a new school of thought that Chamberlain really had his hands tied with Hitler. Britain was quite pacifist/anti-war in the 1930s. And its said that he started up war production so they had those airplanes for the Battle of Britain.
Can cheese-eating surrender monkeys own a copyright?
"so we owe them this"
$4,137,224,354.57 ?
"Does she have a nice butt? "
I'm sure David doesn't know, exiled.
Trump should skip the Bastille Day celebration and just come to Lion's Daze in Sussex, WI this weekend. He'd get a warm welcome here.
Meanwhile Drudge links to AP and Daily Mail reports that say Melania rocked her visit to a children's hospital. Melania speaks French, fluently according to what I've read (though she seems to have brought a translator with her), and seems to have received a great reception from the kids.
Doubtlessly NBC will find some minor fault with the visit that they can kvetch about. Otherwise they'll try to bury it.
Dave from Minnesota:
One theory out there is that The Great War was so devastating to all sides....and a trench warfare gridlock....that if we wouldn't have come in and tipped the scales, a mutually agreeable negotiated peace may have occurred. No German hyperinflation. No Hitler taking over.
Counterhistory is always a dicey game, but I am fairly persuaded by this argument. Had it not been for US support, the Allied powers would likely have been more conciliatory in their peace treaty with the Central powers. While I believe that Germany does bare primary responsibility for the war due its partnership with Austro-Hungary and its foreknowledge that the ultimatum in Serbia was designed to provoke a war, I think the terms imposed on them at Versailles were outlandish. The UK was particularly piggish in its demands, and Wilson was pretty much brushed aside and ignored. The results of Britain and France's folly over carving up the Ottoman Empire live with us today.
Man. I wish I got paid to wander France and find French people to say mean things about the President. Could probably knock off by noon with enough material for weeks.
Rob McLean said...
What I don't get, is why any news organization would feel the need to promote/sell the presidency of Donald Trump.
Why would it be the job of any news organization to attack the presidency of Donald Trump? (Apparently, that's your job, Mr. Lifelong Republican.)
Come on, Rob. Let's not kid each other. MSNBC devotes its early mornings and weeknights to promoting Obama and attacking Trump. FNC devotes its early mornings and weeknights to promoting Trump and attacking Obama.
Big fucking deal.
The democrat media does do a trick on peoples heads.
The Fox News channel ain't exactly science either.
Judging from all of the gratuitous attacks on Fox News, one could almost be fooled into thinking that our resident lifelong Republican (I bet he was fun in preschool...a regular Alex Keaton) was actually a Moby.
@Chuck: Your biggest problem is your instinctual default to writing like a Lefty who doesn't really understand the Right, only the cartoon image in their head. Now I will grant you this could be evidence of being a member of the GOP Establishment instead of a Lefty Moby...but methinks you doeth protest too much.
The Norwegian defense minister still wore a "broken gun" pin in his lapel 9 April 1940.
J Farmer- no.
Distrust of the news media was one of the driving forces in Trump's victory. As the MSM have lost credibility with the US public, they are looking to Europe. BTW, more college-educated white voters voted for Trump than for Clinton. But the media would like the world to believe that Trump voters are an uneducated bunch.
There must be some tiny switch in the heads of Trump's most ardent supporters that causes them to lose their minds when anyone -- especially any Republican -- criticizes Trump.
Our pal Chuckles even projects like a Lefty...
"There must be some tiny switch in the heads of Trump's most ardent detractors that causes them to lose their minds when anyone -- especially any Republican -- mentions Trump."
FTFY
Pew reports that Trump's approval numbers among Europeans are at about 8 or 9 percent.
First: the polls are shit.
Second: If Trump was approved by the French, or any of the other Europeans, I would be very puzzled and would believe that Trump was doing something wrong. The only time the Europeans are happy is when the USA is suffering some kind of setback.
Ann education is what you get from your experiences in life plus what you can garner from reading, or indeed watch on TV or the internet about the experiences of others and add to your store of considered knowledge.
Spending 4 years + of your youth on a college campus by no means assures you of an education.
Western Eurowienies hated Ronald Reagan. After he won the cold war, they built monuments to him in the former communist countries.
"HuffPost is renting a bus to tour mid-America to see who those outside Manhattan live."
Yeah, I saw that. I saw the list of the places they picked in different states. It's all pretty much exemplified by North Carolina. They picked Asheville.
It’s been extremely common for news accounts to portray Donald Trump’s candidacy as a “working-class” rebellion ...
As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
Winston Churchill spent 5 years before 1939 being hated because he exposed the peace at any price Chamberlin government. They were faking the data on Britist Military readiness, especially Airforce readiness. That was much like Obama did to the US Military for eight years.
Churchill was universally despised by British ruling classes, but was stuck in by them as an expendable patsy when the Crown and the Conservative Government saw that England had to negotiate its own surrender in May, 1940.
But Winston was so damn optimistic and bold ( which was why they hated him) that he could not see straight and lead a fight back by raising morale and then administering a very efficient government wartime effort. Like Trump, Winston was a realist and a commander that demanded results.
His leadership was why England held on through a U-boat Armegedden for two more years until Hitler stupidly joined Japan and gave FDR a free cover for joining the War.
I spent a couple days in Paris in 1960, mostly throwing well designed paper airplanes off the Eiffel Tower. The bidet in the hotel room was always backing up noisily on its own. I don't remember the food there. Europe has awful food, is what I recall.
Tradguy....I always found it interesting how FDR lied and lied and lied to get re-elected in 1940. Saying the US will not get involved in a foreign war (left and right was anti-war in the US) while he had already met with Churchill to draw up war plans for when the US would finally get involved.
Of course FDR was right to do this.
Yeah, I saw that. I saw the list of the places they picked in different states. It's all pretty much exemplified by North Carolina. They picked Asheville.
Ha. That is hilarious. Asheville is approaching San Francisco levels of hipster pretentiousness.
"HuffPost is renting a bus to tour mid-America to see who those outside Manhattan live."
Speaking of opportunities for mass mooning...
I love Paris. One of my fave cities in the world.
"Thanks for white-splainin' to that dude. As if non-white less off folks in America don't exist. Don't matter = not DJT voter."
You're displaying the problem Democrats have. They have to resort to race to cover their inability to appeal to the working class who elected Trump. These Democrats say: White working class people don't count -- they belong in the basket of deplorables -- because they must be racists. Or they say: We don't need those white working class people, because we'll be able to get enough nonwhite people and the way we get them is to make a big deal about how they are separate and different because of their race and they can't find shared interests from belonging to the working class.
But that guy in France spoke of "working class," not race. And it is a left-wing tradition, to view the working class as united (and hurt by those who would divide them).
grackle: Didn't I anticipate your second point? I wrote that I expected folks like you to be thrilled that Europeans hated Trump. You aren't telling me anything new. I wrote it, before you did.
I also anticipated the problem with your first point too. You boys seem to be saying that the polls are wrong, and Trump's abysmal Euro polling numbers can't be right. But you also seem to want those polls to be right, because the cheese eatin' surrender monkeys are always wrong and you just know that most Euros hate Trump and yay America! The polls, as reported, are confirming your worst notions about Europeans.
Pick one. The polls are wrong (and Trump actually has more support among those useless Euros) or they are right (in which case NBC's reporting appears to be a lot more fair).
J. Farmer said...
"I think the terms imposed on them at Versailles were outlandish."
Agreed.
"The UK was particularly piggish in its demands, and Wilson was pretty much brushed aside and ignored. The results of Britain and France's folly over carving up the Ottoman Empire live with us today."
I wouldn't be too harsh on the French. They (or at least Marshall Foch) really wanted the Rhinelands -- which would have made the French-German border extremely defensible. The British and Americans foolishly rejected that plan in favor of impossible financial demands.
J. Farmer said...
"I know it's verboten to say these days, but Chamberlain was probably more correct than Churchill in the scheme of things. Appeasement would have been a much better strategy for the UK than making an alliance with Poland."
Perhaps -- but you're ignoring the whole decade leading up to that -- the French and British policy of actively destroying their own militaries out of a bizarre view that military weakness (or parity with Germany) was the surest path to peace. Churchill was screaming bloody murder the whole way -- and he was proven right.
Hitler didn't invade France because they objected to Poland. Hitler invaded France because France was so weak he could conquer them in a month.
@traditionalguy:
But Winston was so damn optimistic and bold ( which was why they hated him) that he could not see straight and lead a fight back by raising morale and then administering a very efficient government wartime effort.
I do not deny the fact that Churchill was an inspiring wartime leader with few peers, but I think he was a hopelessly incompetent strategist.
It seems like all the headlines and titles of stories about Trump have some kind of emotive word in them. The Parisians are resigned. The Trump team is furious. Blah blah blah. I think any news story headlining an emotion related to Trump should get the fake news tag.
While they're complaining, maybe they can live up to their 2% of GDP NATO commitment.
In WWI there was the Prussian dominance over "Germany," which was not all that popular among many German speaking peoples either, and in the United States a great majority of the people were descendants of people who greatly resented the Prussians - and with good reasons.
The European War in WWII, I think was the prelude to "The Cold War." Plus, of course, the atrocities committed by the Nazis against near relatives of U.S. citizens.
"Schrecklichkeit works, but be careful that the person you terrorize does not have a bigger - and meaner - brother!
That is still true, BTW.
Fortunately, large coastie, elite, expensive, well educated and highly paid, fab cities in the U.S. are pretty much Euro.
Then there is the middle and southern mass in this country...hideous. I know many people out here who never travel to these areas. The only reason I do is my family lives there. Once my parents are gone I won't return. It is just so different and gross-and no ocean!!!!
I don't mind Chicago though, but that lake is not the ocean. I have to be near the sea. I have to drive by, or walk on the beach, or take a little dippy wippy, or just splash around and giggle...hee hee.
HT said...
"It’s been extremely common for news accounts to portray Donald Trump’s candidacy as a “working-class” rebellion ..."
Um. You seem to be conflating "low income" and "working-class". Those are practically orthogonal metrics.
The guy who started as an apprentice plumber and now has ten plumbers working for him is "working class". So is the woman who worked her way through nursing school and now manages the nursing staff at her hospital. Both of them are above the median income.
@clint:
Perhaps -- but you're ignoring the whole decade leading up to that --
To be honest, it's still an issue I'm muddling around in my head. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I certainly identify politically with the Old Right, and it's non-interventionist disposition, and likely would have counted myself among their ranks had I been alive to oppose interventionism in the name of anti-communism. As I said, Buchanan's book on the subject of WWII makes a compelling case but didn't quite seal the deal for me.
Chuck said...
"Pew reports that Trump's approval numbers among Europeans are at about 8 or 9 percent."
Which Pew report are you reporting? Please link. The latest I found says the numbers you cite are wrong by over 200%.
Good grief! You don't like him or want him in your country? Grow the fuck up. You little minded folks really need to learn a lesson.
It's the Centenary of the U.S. joining the Western Front in WW1 which is why Macron invited Trump to the parade.
I went through 8 years of Obama, who I detested. You folks who are going crazy over Trump have issues.
harrogate: "Literal laugh out loud."
Yep. I think most of us reading Chucks posts feel the same way.
readering: "It's the Centenary of the U.S. joining the Western Front in WW1 which is why Macron invited Trump to the parade."
Uh, thanks for that update Captain Obvious.
Meade: "Which Pew report are you reporting? Please link. The latest I found says the numbers you cite are wrong by over 200%"
A 200% error represents an order of magnitude improvement on Chucks previous predictions, so the trend is looking good!
I think that, probably owing to his own biases, has fallen for the oldest journalistic trick in the book. The reporter interviews a whole bunch of people and cherry picks the responses that say what the reporter and his editors want to hear. For all anyone knows the NBC reporter threw out hundreds of interviews where the person had positive things to say about Trump, especially since he brought his elegant, French-speaking wife.
J. Farmer: It's a moot point. The US didn't join WWII because we wanted to. Japan attacked us and then Germany declared war. And promptly proceeded to start attacking US ships right off our coast. I'm pretty sure the German military guys weren't too thrilled by taking on the US; especially since how was Germany supposed to defeat us without a surface navy?
The Huffpo Bus only stopping in liberal enclaves is hilarious and telling.
France is not a member of NATO so they don't have any treaty obligations, I believe.
--Vance
French Classified Ad: "For Sale---French Army Rifle---Never Fired---Dropped Only Once".
Readering- WW1 emasculated the French Republic. Too many virile men got killed. The rest were kinda beta. Hence the WW2 Vichy gov.
And now the touchy-feely folks want to allow any dog from anywhere to immigrate. Makes no sense.
As for the present situation, I think it is again true that eventually, someone will do something to piss the Americans off big-time, and then the Americans will fight and fight mean - very mean.
Another take on why Wilson shoved us into WWI; by 1917 the UK and France had borrowed over $700 billion (in today's dollars) from American financiers. Allied defeat might have resulted in cataclysmic losses for the elite in the USA. No doubt the money boys had their finger on Wilson's scale.
Pick one. The polls are wrong (and Trump actually has more support among those useless Euros) or they are right (in which case NBC's reporting appears to be a lot more fair).
Where's the inconsistency? One can believe that "8 or 9 percent" is way off, but still argue that the Europe that elected the likes of Merkel, Hollande, and Macron likely has a majority that disapprove of Trump, and that it's not an indictment of Trump. So?
Wow. NBC plays the [class] diversity and socioeconomic class card in one story. Very ugly.
How very PC. Trump reelected in 2020.
Let's remember that we owe France for its help in securing our own independence. If it weren't for the French we'd still be speaking British.
As for US in WWI, don't forget the Zimmerman telegram -- Germany suggesting it would support a war against us was not endearing.
The NBC article seems to be type #2 fake news -- everything they say is probably true, but the selection of which facts to present is so one-sided as to make the article useless due to overt bias.
France is a big, diverse place. Paris is a big, diverse city. Yet the NBC article has reduced both to simplistic caricatures that don't really provide me with useful information as to the reality of the situation.
As Chuck noted, Trump does not poll well in Europe. But things are generally more complex, and if the article does not provide insight into the complexity, then the article is deceptive and worse than worthless.
Readering- WW1 emasculated the French Republic. Too many virile men got killed. The rest were kinda beta. Hence the WW2 Vichy gov.
I read a book a couple of years ago. It came out about 1935. On the ethnicities of the people of Wisconsin. Very interesting. A lot of now lost ethnic colonies were in Wisconsin. As a Norwegian-American, I enjoyed their explanation of Norwegians. The book said because Norway had avoided the wars that plagued much of the rest of the world, especially the rest of Europe, their genetic stock was superior. It said the largest and strongest males from other nations were killed in wars, leaving the weaker to carry on the nationalities.
GrapeApe: "And now the touchy-feely folks want to allow any dog from anywhere to immigrate. Makes no sense"
Of course it makes sense...once you consider the strategic objectives of the left and their "lifelong republican" allies.
Similar to Reynolds' advisory regarding MSM "journalists": "just think of them as democratic operatives and it all makes sense."
What I don't get, is why any news organization would feel the need to promote/sell the presidency of Donald Trump.
Me either.
But I also don't get why any news organization would feel the need to destroy/undermine the presidency of Donald Trump.
So maybe that's where our disconnect can be found.
Unknown: "As for US in WWI, don't forget the Zimmerman telegram -- Germany suggesting it would support a war against us was not endearing."
What the hell was a "white hispanic" doing in Germany in WWI?
Laurence, here is where I grabbed that number:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/pew-poll-obama-trump-clinton/
And, it was not a CNN mistake. (It was my mistake, as noted herein.) They linked to a Pew survey which asked the question, "How much confidence do you have in _____ to do the right thing regarding world affairs?" Filling the blank in with the name of Obama yielded 77% confidence. Hillary Clinton yielded 59% confidence. Trump was 9% confidence.
But do you see the problem with this late-June poll, which I thought was the just-released Pew poll that has gotten so much attention of late? The CNN story was June 2016. Not June 2017. Wrong year, by exactly one year.
I apologize, and I thank Laurence for calling out the need for the correction.
Now, as I mentioned, there is a late June 2017 poll. Same poll, exactly one year later. And Trump's numbers are still bad. 7% in Spain; 14% in France; a median country average of 18%, dragged upward by mid-twenties in Italy, Poland, Hungary, UK, etc. A super-duper 53%... in Russia.
So back to my point about NBC's using man-on-the-street quotes reflecting low confidence in Trump. If NBC's quotes could in any way be quantified, and if we thought that they should generally reflect polling data, they ought to be about 80% negative, right?
Drago, it took me a minute to get that.
Chuck relies on CNN's characterization of the Pew poll rather than Pew itself:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
No way this could translate to "8 or 9 percent" approval.
UK 22%
Italy 25%
Germany 11%
France 14%
Left Bank: Yes, the French supported the US revolution. And then it all changed, when the French Revolution happened. Most of the worlds problems today can be traced to the French Revolution, I would say. That is where the left of today got its start, with a little help from Rousseau.
In any case, a little known incident from the 1800's is that we did not dismiss the Army after the Civil War. Instead, we prepared to send a million men south into Mexico and overthrow the French government. Seems like France decided to make a move on Mexico in violation of the Monroe Doctrine while we were busy killing Democrats that needed killing.
At the end of the Civil War everyone knew that the US Army was no laughing joke, and no one particularly wanted to face it. France did the usual French thing and surrendered, leaving Emperor Maximillian I think it was hanging. Then the Mexicans took the metaphor and made it literal, I believe.
France's support in the Revolution has long, long since been cashed out.
--Vance
Chuck, I'd like to poll those same nations. Ask them what they think about conservative Christian Republicans from the American Midwest.
Most likely my approval rating would be around 9% in Europe.
but look at it this way....most of the ethnicities will extinct in 60 years. No breeding by the French and their pales, while the rest of the world moves in to take over and have tons of kids.
I see Chuck already corrected himself. But he says "dragged upward" by a bunch of countries, as opposed to "dragged downward" by a few. He also omits Israel at 56%. (OK, Israel isn't Europe, but neither is much of Russia.)
Unknown/Vance, its too bad history isn't being taught anymore. The kids would get so much more out of this sort of thing than white previledge classes.
So stipulated: In France, Pew polling shows approximately 14% of respondents have confidence in Trump's ability to do the right thing in international relations. Not 8%.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world gets their information about the US filtered through 'elitist' fake news like CNN.
So are these the same pollsters who had She Who Will Never Be President as a dead-on favorite to win in a landslide?
What makes anyone think they have a more accurate feel for the pulse of Europe than they do the US?
Why do we care what France thinks? Sure we want to have a good image, but I'd rather be right than popular.
If the US did what the French (and other western European) citizens wanted us to do, the USSR would still be murdering people.
History is indeed important. The French are a funny type. I love mocking them as much as the next red blooded American (Hey, why did the French plant all those trees along the Champs-Elysee? So the Germans could march in the shade!) but Joan of Arc? Mad respect and truly a titanic figure for those who can see. Bastiat, also a Frenchie, is the go to guy whenever you need to beat back leftist and Keynesian economic blather. He was there, right after the French Revolution. He knew socialism, and he knew it very well. And his stuff is shorter and easier than Hayek or Mises. (By the way, I recommend the book "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for a very readable, more up to date economics lesson than Bastiat.)
I think of Europe as the weenie brother or sister with us Americans as the large, slightly wild younger brother that they are embarrassed to be seen with. Yes, they disapprove of us.... but when push comes to shove, they are glad knowing the US is there, in all our wild, crude, beer drinking rabble rousing glory, ready to wade in with head uncovered and two fists swinging. Just not fit for "polite company" dear.
So they disapprove... but down deep, they are glad we are here. Even if they cannot explain why.
--Vance
Drago btw it's known as WW1 because it preceded WW2.
Might have already been said up-thread but how many of us think that the reporter would have asked as many people as he needed to until he got just the right quote of disdain? That if (God forbid) the first 100 people he asked either did not care or were happy, he would have gone for #101.
It's all pretty much exemplified by North Carolina. They picked Asheville.
Yep, and if they go to Wyoming it will be Jackson Hole; Montana, Bigfork; Colorado, Boulder; New Mexico, Santa Fe or Taos; Arizona, Tucson [or Sedona], where they will be pleasantly 'surprised' to find a veritable plethora [Cosell-ing here] of Trump haters.
Ann Althouse said...: "Yeah, I saw that. I saw the list of the places they picked in different states. It's all pretty much exemplified by North Carolina. They picked Asheville."
Not hard to believe. It is the San Francisco of the South, and probably one of the few places in the South any of their staff has actually been. They will have all their pre-conceived ideas confirmed.
They should add to their trip by taking I-26 and coming over the mountains to the Tri-Cities in TN or to SW VA. They will hear something completely different.
Susan said...
So are these the same pollsters who had She Who Will Never Be President as a dead-on favorite to win in a landslide?
This is my pet peeve.
The national polls in 2016 were basically well within their own clearly-defined margin of error. They weren't wrong.
Of the 13 final national polls conducted the week before the election that tested the four-way presidential contest, only one had Trump ahead and 12 put Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on top.
That would seem to be a veritable disaster for the polling industry, right?
Not exactly.
National polls only measure the popular vote. Clinton did, in fact, win the national popular vote by 2.1 points. The average of the 13 final national polls had Clinton ahead by 3.1 points, which was only a point off the actual result.
Ironically, all 12 polls that had Clinton ahead turned out to be closer to the final outcome than the poll that had Trump ahead. While that may seem crazy — since Trump, not Clinton, is headed to the White House — it's true. The poll that put Trump ahead (by 2 points) was off by 4.1 points, while polls that gave Clinton the lead were off anywhere from only one-tenth of a point to less than 4 points.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/315145-one-last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right
B-b-b-b-ut Trump won all of those electoral college votes! Right. They don't poll electoral college votes. If you want polls of the swing/upset states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin), they were incredibly close, and the final results were near/within the margins of error for state polling. The big difference in Michigan was failed urban/Dem turnout compared to '08 and '12.
What I don't get, is why any news organization would feel the need to promote/sell the presidency of Donald Trump. That's Sean Hannity's job. And that is one American job that Trump is determined to save.
It is NOT their job to "promote/sell" the presidency of ANY President. It is their job to "report" the facts. I would be ecstatic if they just did that but that is not where we are.
They were the active PR arm of the DNC and the Obama Presidency. They are now the active PR arm of the "RESISTANCE". That is all they are.
I "wish" they felt the need to be reporters but here we are.
Chuck said "I know, I know; the Trumpkins have general contempt for how Europeans feel. Any lack of support among Europeans is a feature, and not a bug. "
Perhaps our contempt is in response to their age-old and open contempt? Kind of like your statement. And why many on this site respond to you the way they do. You drip contempt.
One doesn't have to be a 'Trumpkin' to pick up on it from you or the French.
B-b-b-b-ut Trump won all of those electoral college votes! Right. They don't poll electoral college votes.
That's essentially false. There were lots of swing state polls, and almost all were wrong in the same direction. They were what led Nate Silver (and others) to give Hillary about a 70% chance or more of winning the electoral college. Not the popular vote.
France is not a member of NATO so they don't have any treaty obligations, I believe.
What??
J. Farmer opines: Appeasement would have been a much better strategy for the UK than making an alliance with Poland.
Appeasement is never the better strategy.
But the Versailles Treaty was a disaster and laid the foundation for Hitler. I think/hope we learned our lesson from that debacle.
Oh, and if they visit Texas it will only be to Austin.
France is not a member of NATO so they don't have any treaty obligations, I believe.
Of course they are.
Just checked the Huffington Post list of 23 cities. It's mostly large cities, many controlled by Democrats. What do they hope to learn? What a horrible list. Other than Odessa, TX, or maybe Oxford, MS or Casper, WY, I doubt they will learn much. St. Louis and Detroit? And Memphis is not at all representative of TN. It is a thoroughly corrupt, crime-ridden Democrat-controlled city much like Chicago. Fortunately it is not big enough to overwhelm the state like Chicago does IL. They would have done better to come east of Nashville to get a reading of what the state is like. This tour is a sham.
Annie said...
Chuck said "I know, I know; the Trumpkins have general contempt for how Europeans feel. Any lack of support among Europeans is a feature, and not a bug. "
Perhaps our contempt is in response to their age-old and open contempt? Kind of like your statement. And why many on this site respond to you the way they do. You drip contempt.
So you are agreeing with me, yes? I suggested that Trump fans have mostly contempt for the general views of Europeans and their current leaders. And you are saying, Damn right, our contempt is in response to theirs, toward us...
Good news; you got something else spot-on. My view toward the most ardent personal supporters of Trump is contempt.
2 of my distant cousins are buried in Normandy. We don't need their smart ass attitude.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/08/world/two-roosevelt-sons-in-normandy-graves.html
France is not a member of NATO so they don't have any treaty obligations, I believe.
France was a founding member of NATO. There used to be American air bases in France similar to those in the UK and Germany. However in 1966 de Gaulle was jealous of the relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. and thought they unfairly dominated NATO. So he demanded that all non-French military forces leave France (basically the U.K. and the U.S.) and withdrew French forces from unified commands. He never officially left the treaty however, and France is still a member.
Mountain Man: Maybe the HuffPo staff are afraid of straying from the cities. Wild Indians, y'know.
" I think he was a hopelessly incompetent strategist."
He got stone cold sold out at Yalta for sure.
The most incompetent strategist of the war was clearly Hitler.
My view toward the most ardent personal supporters of Trump is contempt.
The reason Trump exists is that the contempt was always there on your part, and this is our way of returning it.
The most incompetent strategist of the war was clearly Hitler.
Incompetent military strategist, for sure. Brilliant political strategist.
James K said...
B-b-b-b-ut Trump won all of those electoral college votes! Right. They don't poll electoral college votes.
That's essentially false. There were lots of swing state polls, and almost all were wrong in the same direction. They were what led Nate Silver (and others) to give Hillary about a 70% chance or more of winning the electoral college. Not the popular vote.
1. Nate Silver is an analyst, not a pollster, and he didn't do any polling.
2. Using Michigan as an example, the leading state poll is the Epic-MRA poll. The final poll had Hillary up by 4%. (Others were 3% to 5%.) The margin of error with Epic-MRA was 4%. Trump won Michigan by 0.23%.
Q: Who was the best German general of WWII
A: Eisenhower
Even Oxford is a bit of a mixed bag. Ole Miss refuses to fly the Mississippi state flag. The mayor is a white Democrat, something that I don't think is all that common anymore in Mississippi. But I am fairly sure its still to the right of most of the other towns they are going to.
"Incompetent military strategist, for sure. Brilliant political strategist."
Yes, I should've clarified that point.
readering: "Drago btw it's known as WW1 because it preceded WW2."
Ha!
That's the way to roll with it.
Well played.
The final poll had Hillary up by 4%. (Others were 3% to 5%.) The margin of error with Epic-MRA was 4%. Trump won Michigan by 0.23%.
So you agree it was outside the margin of error. The "leading state poll" said it was likely Hillary could win by 7 or 8, but unlikely for Trump to win at all.
Chuck: "So stipulated: In France, Pew polling shows approximately 14% of respondents have confidence in Trump's ability to do the right thing in international relations. Not 8%."
When it comes to international relations its quite clear that Trump will not agree to surrender. Hence our "disconnect" with the French in terms of our doing what they think is the "right thing".
So how big are the error bars on these polls? Big enough so the actual approval rate is more like 20% instead of 9? 30%? If the error bars are big enough they could be "not wrong" while being absolutely misleading.
Based on past performance I'd put any poll in Fake but Accurate column.
" He never officially left the treaty however, and France is still a member."
France also retained their zone (as with the British and US zones) in Germany and their NATO forces remained stationed there.
To this day actually.
The most incompetent strategist of the war was clearly Hitler.
Only because he didn't offer peace when he reached the English channel.
I would think that the French would welcome Trump with open legs. They seem quite comfortable with pussy grabbing leaders, but they do have an uncontrollable need to be rude to foreigners, so they are quite torn.
There is an argument that Italy initiated the end of WW1. They defeated Germany's only ally, the Austria Hungarian empire at the battle of Venetto. Terms included the total surrender and break up of the empire, and free passage for troops through Austria to open up a southern front to fight Germany, far away from the trenches of France. Germany sued for peace within weeks or months.
As to the polls, Trump has an amazing ability to make people believe and say things that end up being wrong, and that goes for supporters and haters, but especially the haters. Being forced to look at every policy, action, or word said by him in the most negative light possible really sets you up for error.
"They defeated Germany's only ally, the Austria Hungarian empire at the battle of Venetto."
The Austrian Army was starving, literally, and on the point of collapse already. The Vittorio Veneto offensive just kicked open an unlocked door.
A fascinating book - "The White War" - Mark Thompson, on Italy's experience in WWI.
"Nate Silver is an analyst, not a pollster, and he didn't do any polling."
Did I say otherwise?
And it's not just that Michigan was off by a bit more than there margin of error. It's that a whole bunch of battleground states we're all off in he same direction. Michigan by itself could have been a statistical fluke, but the odds of that happening in a bunch of key states under sound polling are 100 to one or more.
Chuck said...
Pew reports that Trump's approval numbers among Europeans are at about 8 or 9 percent. So this report -- while it doesn't propose to try to explain any appeal of Trump as president, and why should it -- seems rather fairly representative of European feeling.
Fortunatly for Trump, the French, like the rest of Europe, have zero electoral votes in the 2020 election.
Kevin said...
The final poll had Hillary up by 4%. (Others were 3% to 5%.) The margin of error with Epic-MRA was 4%. Trump won Michigan by 0.23%.
So you agree it was outside the margin of error. The "leading state poll" said it was likely Hillary could win by 7 or 8, but unlikely for Trump to win at all.
See, Kevin, I chose Michigan because I know the numbers pretty well off the top of my head and because it was a difference-maker. An outlier, among generally-correct nationwide polling. Michigan was outside of the stated margin of error by a tiny 23/100ths of one percentage point. Most of the rest of the country was not just within the margin of error, but pretty close to being spot-on correct.
The RealClear Politics average lead for Hillary prior to the election was 3.3 points. The final election results showed Hillary with a national vote total advantage of something close to 2 points. That estimate/prediction of the 2016 vote was closer to the actual result than in 2012, and easily within the margin of error. A damn close call, in fact. Good polling, not bad polling.
I'm with Sgt. Schultz: I hope they let us keep France after the war.
I wonder what Ronald Reagan's popularity rating was in Europe in the early to mid 90's? You know, Ronnie Raygin
You're a tool Chuck and if you are a republican, you have no knowledge of history during my lifetime.
"The final poll had Hillary up by 4%. (Others were 3% to 5%.) The margin of error with Epic-MRA was 4%. Trump won Michigan by 0.23%."
So the poll was wrong to the very edge of the margin of error. That's a 95% confidence interval. The final polls, all of them, were still grossly wrong, every one yielding a 70-90% probability prediction against the event. And this was the case across the swing states.
And whats that about final polls? Final polls aren't very useful in strategic or operational plans for political campaigns. Nearly all the work of persuasion is done by then. Prior polls were grossly off vis-a-vis the actual situation and misled the Clinton campaign.
Shorter NBC:
French citizens insulting Trump = heroic
American citizens insulting Marcon = horrific
Of course, they are "resigned" to it. That is what they do, they're French
"I wonder what Ronald Reagan's popularity rating was in Europe in the early to mid 90's? "
Just thinking the same thing. The man who probably did more for European security than anyone since WW II, not to mention freeing half the content from the USSR, but hey they didn't like him, and probably still don't. I could care less what they think, but I know who they will call when they need saving again.
And if the Europeans need our help again they will be extremely lucky if it's a Trump type president rather than an Obama one, despite the foolishness of which they would choose.
The most incompetent strategist of the war was clearly Hitler
False.
The most "inconsistent" strategist of the war was clearly Hitler.
Hitler correctly read the weakness in the UK/French body politic which is why he aggressively rearmed, re-militarized the Rhineland, moved into the Sudetenland.
Hitler correctly understood the near-term geo-political need to align with the Soviets.
Hitler was incorrect when he misread the willingness of the future allies to respond to the joint Germany/Soviet invasion of Poland.
Hitler was aggressive and daring and utilized all german war-making capabilities to push quickly when he sensed weakness in the allies.
His only true collossal mistake was during Operation Barbarossa when, after massive victories in the field and destroying multiple Russian army groups and annihilating/capturing millions of Russian soldiers and when German Army Group Center was within sight of Moscow itself, ordering German Army Group Center southward, into the Ukraine and away from Moscow due to his paranoia about resources/remaining russian forces.
That mistake was fatal as it allowed the Russians to regroup and keep the Germans out of Moscow.
Had Hitler pushed into Moscow, and there were no effective Soviet forces in front of him at the time, Stalin would have been deposed and the Germans would have been in possession of over 70% of all soviet war material production capabilities while they wintered comfortably in Moscow, awaiting the Spring for the final mop up operations.
That would have meant the Germans could have effectively secured the East and then returned the bulk of their forces to resume the assault on Great Britain prior to the US coming into the war and consolidating all of France.
A true "one front war" in which Germany would have had the advantage.
As for the Japanese, their defeat was "inevitable" starting about 7am Hawaii time on 7Dec41.
"The most incompetent strategist of the war was clearly Hitler.
Only because he didn't offer peace when he reached the English channel."
I think that there are a number of military historians who believe that the War of Britain was winnable by the Germans. One problem was that the Germans switched from bombing military targets to bombing cities, after the British managed to bomb, I believe, Berlin. Militarily, hitting airfields was apparently better because it reduced the number that could launch planes to intercept the German bombers, and the actual target was easier to predict when it was cities (esp London), allowing the British to mass their fighters better. Done, apparently, on orders by Hitler. And then there was the opening of a two front war that included the USSR. Some have theorized that if the Germans had concentrated on Britain (and hitting military, not civilian targets), they could have knocked them out of the war, and with them gone, they might have had a decent chance at the USSR (esp with the US never in the war, or only in the Pacific, with no good place to stage an invasion of Europe, and likely no support for the Russians).
"I wonder what Ronald Reagan's popularity rating was in Europe in the early to mid 90's? "
The Pew link mentioned that Trump's numbers are very similar to W's in his first term.
If it hasm
t been already said;
"The French, they're always there when they need us."
ORourke
FDR hated war, but he started a mass build up and a draft in early 1940. That was right after word of Leo Szilard's breakthrough in the way to control a U-235 fission device bomb made race to War to stop Germany inevitable. Explaining that was not possible. But FDR did what ever was necessary.
I expect there are newer game changer weapons kept secret from us today. And the race is with China who are Communist Tyrants, not Russia that would be a very good ally against China's next move.
James K: "The Pew link mentioned that Trump's numbers are very similar to W's in his first term."
The French hate Trump.
The French hated W.
The French hated Reagan.
"Chuck" finds himself in agreement with the French.
Unexpectedly.
"I expect there are newer game changer weapons kept secret from us today."
Its worse than this. There are plenty of well known, existing weapons that have never been used in a genuine high-tech major power conflict. Nobody really knows what the military value of anything is, in an unlimited (well, unlimited non-nuclear) struggle, because there hasn't really been such a war since 1945.
Simulations are almost always terribly biased by planners assumptions.
Every major war sorts out the important, the less-important, and the useless weapon systems, and almost always this is a surprise to military planners. Since these things have not been tested against worthy opponents for nearly a century, should there be such a war there are sure to be a host of surprises. The uncertainty is far worse today than it was in 1914.
There are, no doubt, very highly valued systems, open or secret, that will prove as irrelevant as the French mitrailleuse in 1870, or as critical as the Dreyse needle-rifle in 1866.
" the Germans would have been in possession of over 70% of all soviet war material production capabilities while they wintered comfortably in Moscow,"
They would, moreover, have been in possession of the main hub of the Soviet railway network.
The French, Spanish, and most other western Europeans HATED Reagan. They called him a stupid cowboy who will destroy the world in a nuclear war.
And every Republican since is viewed that way by the Eurowienies.
"Don't worry. NBC doesn't understand either. By the way, we also came to save Europe in World War II, but who's counting? Let us know if you need us again. We're always ready to help, whether you understand us or not."
Spicy today. I like it.
Wait a minute - what happened to the Donald Trump Jr story ? Is he in jail yet ? Has Hillary been sworn in ? Did I miss something ?
Would the war in Russia have been different if Hitler had started it....say 6 weeks earlier? All other things constant, he would have been close to Moscow 6 weeks sooner and before the worst of the winter hit.
I just hope Trump can handle yet another firm, steely eyed, awkwardly long handshake. I bet Macron got an attaboy from his teacher/wife last time.
" All other things constant, he would have been close to Moscow 6 weeks sooner and before the worst of the winter hit."
All other things are not necessarily constant. The logistic preparations may not have been quite as advanced six weeks earlier, such as the accumulation of motor transport, which was critical and as it happened grossly inadequate anyway.
They hate us because they need us. We provide them the freedom to grandstand without consequence, but as beneficial as the arrangement is for them, it only works because they don't really matter. And they hate that.
Drago said...
...
"Chuck" finds himself in agreement with the French.
Not once in this thread did I say that I agree with the French. I never participated in any Pew poll about Trump.
This blog is owned and operated by an individual who supported Barack Obama. Something I've never done. I'm a loyal Republican (voting for Trump, as proof of my die-hard loyalty to party), and she is not.
But she finds Trump to be personally interesting, and I find Trump to be personally revolting. And for that alone, I am attacked where she is not.
Talk about a Cult of the Personality.
It's like they're clueless foreigners. How can this be?
LLR: "And for that alone, I am attacked where she is not."
Nope.
You are attacked because you are always wrong.
Perhaps it's because you are so thoroughly aligned with the left.
Good luck with that in the future.
Why does an American president have to be in French hearts? I don't give a croissant about Macaroon or any French leader. Never have.
The French loved Barry until they were a wee bit disappointed.
At least they could have said "Many Parisians are resigned...." Throw us a bone here Times!
They LOATHED Reagan. Then he put the SS20s in Germany.
Good times, good times.
They loved the Japanese, tho. All that yen flowing and being top dog.
If we're to believe that most Parisians don't want anything to do with the POTUS, they've obviously forgotten that if it wasn't for earlier generations of Deplorables, they'd be speaking Jerry right now.
bagoh20, you've missed the point. Trump has an amazing ability to say something that goes against the grain of what is being pushed by the mainstream media that end up either having a grain of truth or being just plain flat out right. Maybe it's the blind pig thing. I don't know why but I see it happening over and over.
Annie is bang on. If you don't actually live in the U.S., the only picture of it you'll get EVERY DAY, EVERY HOUR is U.S. main stream media. All Trump, all negative, all the time.
But she finds Trump to be personally interesting, and I find Trump to be personally revolting. And for that alone, I am attacked where she is not.
No..you're attacked because you are obsessive and constantly thread jacking.
All other things are not necessarily constant. The logistic preparations may not have been quite as advanced six weeks earlier, such as the accumulation of motor transport, which was critical and as it happened grossly inadequate anyway.
The morale of the officers and men would probably not have been any better six weeks prior.
"Good news; you got something else spot-on. My view toward the most ardent personal supporters of Trump is contempt."
And when Trump wins in 2020 by a wider margin than 2016 we will laugh at you then too. Not a single trump voter has changed their mind since voting for him and there are many new supporters. Since you have been wrong about everything for the last two years what else would you deserve? Go back to huffpo and get some better talking points.
Vichy traitors are really only deserving of contempt anyways.
You're attacked because we know, you're not changing anyone's mind, but you keep trying.
I found the former rapist in chief and the light bringer personally revolting, but survived. Everyone knew where I stood. There was no point in constantly expressing my disgust.
Trump wins in 2020
It will be close. There is a progressive margin of naturalization (e.g. refugees from Obama's elective wars, secular "religious" and civil organizations sponsorship of excessive immigration), fraud, and foreign intrigue that may yet succeed to disenfranchise Americans.
"and it's the working class places where he held the rallies and spoke to the people who bonded with him and made him President. "
WHITE working class places Ann. Not those working class N*I*G* s you're always going on about.
Not a single trump [sic] voter has changed their mind since voting for him and there are many new supporters.
@Achilles, I'd go farther, based on my observations out in flyover country. A lot of soft Trump voters like myself, people who voted against Hillary more than they voted for Trump, are now strong Trump supporters. His cabinet choices have been solid, even Tillerson (whom I had been dubious about). From what I understand, his choices for the judiciary are way better than solid. From where I sit he's been a good president so far. And, above all, we love him for the enemies he has made.
Outside of the big cities, the French love America. And hate pollsters.
Outside of the big cities, Americans love America too.
Chuck said:
But she finds Trump to be personally interesting, and I find Trump to be personally revolting. And for that alone, I am attacked where she is not.
Talk about a Cult of the Personality.
That's not the only reason you are attacked.
You, Chuck, are a one man cult of the personality. As always, Chuck, it's all about you.
Drumpf is a Vichy traitor doing the heir to Stalin's bidding.
Working class is not the same as welfare class.
Tommy Duncan said...
...
You, Chuck, are a one man cult of the personality. As always, Chuck, it's all about you.
You are talking about my detractors. Who veer from whatever it is that Althouse has posted, or whatever substance I have posted in comments, to go off on whether I am a moby, or a paid Dem operative, or who I most likely voted for since who I say I voted for is apparently not good enough. None of that matters to me, in this forum, and I fail to understand why they obsess over it.
And that works just one way. Because I really don't care who they are, what they do for a living, what they think, or who they supported in past elections.
Maybe that is what pisses them off. That I don't care. Whatever the case; I don't.
Let the Muslims have France! Fuck 'em!
" Because I really don't care who they are, what they do for a living, what they think, or who they supported in past elections."
But you expect people to care about what you think. Nobody does. You haven't changed a single mind here. The only people who agree with you are leftists.
But I guess this is your little therapy session, your only way of venting your Trump hatred.
K
C
U
H
C
Upchuck.
Well, Mr. Mac, you might be interested to know that in America, he's not welcome among the elite, and it's the working class places where he held the rallies and spoke to the people who bonded with him and made him President.
Why would he care?
Such a careless piece, and of a piece with this whole scattershot misunderstanding of what is or is not elitism vs. vulgarity. It's all economic for the voters, no matter how classlessly crass the Vulgar U.S. WH Resident is. All you have to ask is cui bono? Do the millionaires and billionaires benefit from Trump? They sure do. Do those earning 60,000 annually or less? They sure don't.
All else is just a cultural food fight which will go nowhere - as they all do. But I suppose that's entirely the point. Another distraction, along with our Twittering Resident of the United States, to keep people from focusing on how he's doing nothing for the "average" person and everything for his fellow billionaires.
He's in it for himself. And it's not good for anyone else.
But you expect people to care about what you think. Nobody does. You haven't changed a single mind here. The only people who agree with you are leftists.
This is how right-wingers believe wrong things.
65+% of the country = leftists.
"A single mind here" = The majority of America.
Is the Althouse blog intended to be a right-wing site? Or do you want it to be portrayed that way?
Because I'm not sure that's how it's set up. And I'm not sure Chuck got the memo, either.
Just let me know if you want this hangout to be an all-right wing, all-Trump defenses website. I'll be happy to keep it in mind, if that's your take.
And, above all, we love him for the enemies he has made.
That was what brought me from skeptical to a supporter.
I was pretty much "A Pox on Both Their Houses" type but got converted when JEB Bush made his case with such limp wristed elegance.
The Trump defenders are incapable of defending the Resident's record, though they naturally feel impelled to, nonetheless.
What's remarkable however, is how quickly they retreated into just making his poor performance a referendum on an already completed election result. I can imagine a normal person going, "Yeah, this president here ain't all that great. But if he hadn't been the one to win, imagine some worse things that might've happened..." And proceeded to list them.
The Trumpists can't even do that. They really do seem to think that, once in office, anything goes. Their weaksauce defense of Trump isn't even a defense. It's a shameless confession of simply not caring at all what the guy does, as if beating Hillary Clinton at an election entitles someone to essentially have a record as disastrous as they can manage to implement. It's all good!
"And, above all, we love him for the enemies he has made."
That was what brought me from skeptical to a supporter.
In what other endeavors do you find negative attention to be the sole criterion for success?
This president needs to be housebroken and to stop coloring on the walls. Once that happens, and it will, his mediocrity will undoubtedly enthrall you. And by then the Greedy Old Pee-Wees party will be on its way out, for good.
How's that healthcare-less bill of theirs coming along, BTW?
There are, no doubt, very highly valued systems, open or secret, that will prove as irrelevant as the French mitrailleuse in 1870, or as critical as the Dreyse needle-rifle in 1866.
It's even worse than that.
The Union Army did not purchase the Henry repeating rifle because the Army thought soldiers would waste ammunition.
Had they done so, The Confederates could not have armed themselves with cast away federal muzzle loaders.
Instead, the South did not have the technology to make the ammunition for the Henry.
Union officers took up collections and bought the rifles for their own units. At Antietam , a Union battalion armed with Henry rifles held off a Confederate division.
Then, of course, there is the story of the US rejecting Maxim's machine gun.
Also, The US Army had the BAR, a light (relatively) machine gun, and did not use it in WWI because they feared the Germans would capture one and copy it. It was not used in combat until WWII.
Now, we have the LCS, a probably useless Navy ship.
Ritmo chatters along as if anyone reads his crap.
Any proof that anyone reads yours, Michael?
O.R.s have captive audiences. Blogs don't.
But bad habits die hard. I bet you thought you were really entertaining when gloved and gowned and holding a scalpel while barking at your "underlings."
I read Michael k. I skip Ritmo's scat.
Post a Comment