But right now what I want to do is force myself to read one of those articles. I've chosen something from a website I usually avoid, Salon. I avoid it because it feels like a cocoon for people who want a certain sort of cocoon-y comfort, a kind that's not to my taste. The cocoon that's to my taste is this blog. And here on this blog, today, I'm pushing myself through the exercise of reading a Salon article, by Chauncey DeVega, called "Donald Trump leads an insane white cult — and Pat Buchanan just explained how it works/GOP front-runner leads cult of personality centered around white alienation, racial resentment and authoritarianism."
What Pat Buchanan said was:
[Trump's] popularity is traceable to the fact that he rejects the moral authority of the media, breaks their commandments, and mocks their condemnations. His contempt for the norms of Political Correctness is daily on display. And that large slice of America... relishes this defiance.Buchanan seems to be taunting MSM, but "moral authority," "commandments," "condemnation," and "norms of Political Correctness" seem to imply anti-racism. So maybe what excites the "defiance" of the "large slice" is racism.
[The media] constantly denounce him as grossly insensitive for what he has said about women, Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and a reporter with a disability. Such crimes against decency, says the press, disqualify Trump as a candidate for president.Yes, what Trump says is framed as racist by the media, and somehow a lot of people — a large slice of America — are resisting the demand that they reject Trump. It's a fascinating phenomenon, and it could mean these Americans are drawn to whatever racism or remnants and resonances of racism Trump's various statements contain, but it could also mean these Americans are tired of these insinuations and heartened that Trump won't take the push back that has worked on virtually everyone else.
As Buchanan put it:
[W]hen [the media] demand he apologize, Trump doubles down. And when they demand that Republicans repudiate him, the GOP base replies: “Who are you to tell us whom we may nominate? You are not friends. You are not going to vote for us. And the names you call Trump — bigot, racist, xenophobe, sexist — are the names you call us, nothing but cuss words that a corrupt establishment uses on those it most detests.”So these people, in Buchanan's view, are not racists, but people who have been on the receiving end of the accusations of racism, and Trump represents them, as he stands his ground and wins for them. He's lifted them up. Are people who feel this way an "insane white cult"? Of course, Buchanan isn't saying that explicitly, so how does DeVega set out to put these people back in the low place where he thinks they belong?
DeVega never seriously considers Buchanan's analysis. He leaps into calling Trump "the leader of a cult of personality," "a proto-fascist," and "a classic 'strong man' political figure." He finds fault in his "egomaniacal narcissism" and "charismatic leader persona." Trump is "a type of political cult leader." If Trump is a cult leader, then, I guess, the people who like him must be in a cult. And then maybe the next leap is possible. They're insane:
To understand Donald Trump’s appeal, one must seriously consider the possibility that his followers specifically, and movement conservatives and the Republican Party more generally, are exhibiting signs of political psychopathology....(Garner! It's taking all my power to resist digressing (again) on that ludicrous word. One must seriously consider the possibility that anyone who uses this word is exhibiting signs of psychopathology.)
Donald Trump is using his campaign to garner more money and power....
Look, all of us participating in American politics have human minds, and our thinking is unavoidably infused with emotion. The people who lean in ways that are different from yours are not insane, not for the most part. Don't disparage those who suffer from genuine mental illness by saying the people you disagree with politically are crazy. Emotion is not insanity. You should try to understand the emotion that draws people to candidates you dislike, but to call them crazy is to do something that is, ironically, akin to racism. You're aiming disgust and contempt at them and trying to make other people shun them. (Ah, there! I did stumble into defining racistist.)
DeVega says:
Trump is providing a safe space and outlet for conservatives to validate their preexisting racist, xenophobic and bigoted attitudes. Their true selves are being actualized and “liberated.”That's a hypothesis worth thinking about, but DeVega hasn't proved it. Indeed, he's operating within the safe space of Salon, providing an outlet for liberals and lefties who are happy to validate their preexisting belief that conservatives are racist, xenophobic, and bigoted. Who's got the "true self" here and who is being "actualized" and "'liberated'"? It's psychology all the way down.
Posts
74 comments:
Trump is not "conservative". His appeal is trans-ideological, more nationalist. The "racist" approbrium heaped on his followers is probably enought to get the undecided center to conceal any support. But it's the conservatives who the left are going to brand that anyway that are his most visibly strident supporters.
a Salon article, by Chauncey DeVega
That guy's just a standard-issue left-wing racist.
"DeVega says:
Trump is providing a safe space and outlet for conservatives to validate their preexisting racist, xenophobic and bigoted attitudes."
Well, he's an expert on racist, xenophobic and bigoted attitudes:
chauncey devega says:
Nothing sadder than a black man who has "all lives matter" in his profile. Clayton Bigsby chanting "white power"
chauncey devega
Again, what shall we do with the white men? Special camps? Register them? Special databases? Where do they gather?
Salon = intellectual slumming.
The lefts accusations about Trump are merely their own bigotries on display. The white male is the Jew to the modern liberal fascism. Buchanan's analysis is accurate in that ordinary non lefty people are fed up with the incessant name calling of the crybullies.
That [Trump is providing a safe space and outlet for conservatives to validate their preexisting racist, xenophobic and bigoted attitudes] is a hypothesis worth thinking about.
Can you name one other hypothesis involving the libel of millions of Americans that you consider to be worth thinking about?
Donald Trump and his followers qualify as "racist" only under the redefinition of the term by progressives. Rejecting such redefinition is probably more of their thing.
What I want to know is, why did De Vegas name their son "Chanucey"?
In my experience, people like Trump because he's rich. They think that if they become like or identify with him and the asshole way he thinks that they, too, will become rich. This is like someone thinking that if they do lots of drugs, they'll be a rock star.
What are the supposed racist statements of Donald Trump? I have yet to see/hear one. But they are fairly common on the left, which is generally ignored by the majority of the media.
Trump cultists are the ones who sing White Christmas as if it is about a snow storm. And the militant ones will ski with long poles. They will also wear gloves outside to please Nordic Gods while they eat German food and beer.
Their secret base is under a glacial morain in Wisconsin. Why else would Althoue and Meade walk around there so much.
Salon is not a plae place for smart commentary, and DeVega is certainly not a person to write smart commentary. What Salon does is signal the bounds of discourse to other, less overtly biased publications.
People on the American Left lost the ability, long ago, to distinguish between patriotism, nationalism, and fascism.
Trump is a fascist for insisting that the US can choose something other than open borders. FDR interned tens of thousands of people based on their race, but is not a fascist. Obama knows the true spirit of the American people is not represented by its democratic institutions, so he rules by diktat, but he is not a fascist.
Seems to me "garner" was seen mostly in the sports columns decades ago. Sportswriters of a certain time were always looking for a more colorful way of saying "Joe Pitcher got his fifteenth win today".
An author with race-colored glasses
Last two elections, (before that the election got stolen by a better clown of the two jokers running), people in the middle (unemotional?) like me wondered how an incompetent without accomplishments could sway a cult and win. Now we are again wondering how a bully with a foul mouth and no policy experience can run and seem to be winning. The country is in disarray, that is all what it says -- left, right, and everywhere, sophistication in thought, execution and results are missing.
Here's the way the world works: In the final analysis you can either be a bigoted, xenophobic survivor, or you can be an open-minded object of an extinction event. Take your pick.
This post needs an 'Amanda' tag.
The leftish Democrats have had "the Indian sign" on the Republican establshment since the 1934 election. Trump is the first Republican candidate since then to stand up and say, "Nyeah! nyeah! and nuts to you too!"
And this can not be tolerated.
There comes a time when everyone will be required to stake their positions and stand their ground.
War! What is it good for? To resolve irreconcilable differences.
That said, principles matter.
How can post modern Leftism not be a politics of vilification? It doesn't believe that there is a rationality that undergirds discourses between interest groups. "Rationality" is simply a disguise that those in power use to maintain their power.
The Post-Modernist knows that winning means that your favorite discourse crowds out all the others, that your views become the horizons of permissible thought. Rhetoric is the Will To Power's most useful tool.
I can't remember the last time Buchanan made so much sense. It also sounds exactly like the list El Rushbo uses to describe how the media routinely label Republicans. Tax cuts are "racist" and voting for traditional marriage is "homophobic" and declining to welcome terrorists-as-refugees is "xenophobic" etc etc.
"Political psychopathology." Nothing like a little armchair Soviet psychiatry to start your day.
Hoo-boy, did DeVega cherry pick that article by Buchanan, or what? There's a lot more in that Buchanan article, much of which works against DeVega's thesis, than DeVega wants to admit.
I wonder how many Salon readers click through to the Buchanan article & figger that out for themselves?
The present Republican Party was the party of the wild-eyed abolitionist and "Free Soilers." Theodore Roosevelt was the leader of the progressive "Bull Moose" wing of the party, and the "Prairie Populists" were Republicans.
In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt ran on a platform of "economy in government" and fiscal responsibility against the liberal "Boy Wonder," Herbert Hoover.
Jack Kennedy in 1960 also ran on "economy in government" and correcting the reckless spending and expansion of the government bureaucracy under the Eisenhower administration plus the "missile gap" that wasn't.
Good times, good times.
Can’t help but enjoy these daily doses of Trump truths that he makes available to the public. Also, it’s fascinating to watch the establishment types scramble to stop the Tump train in its tracks. This is a story unfolding that is about a good guy vs the bad guys.
"Seems to me "garner" was seen mostly in the sports columns decades ago. Sportswriters of a certain time were always looking for a more colorful way of saying "Joe Pitcher got his fifteenth win today"."
Right. As I've said in other posts, it's a word for people who think there's a reason not to use the normal word "get." Like get is slang or just unacceptably short.
These people have the same problem with "put." But the replacements for "put" are varied and I haven't noticed one as frequent and ludicrous as "garner."
Good grief, pm317, "Stolen"??? More proof that the most ignorant of voters are those referring to themselves as being "in the middle"...
Anyone who still, at this time, after all the evidence thinks that the election of 2000 was stolen is an idiot. Even Garage doesn't think that...
The ABQ Journal had a headline with "garner" in it today. I think it was on the front sports page though.
Part of the job of emotion-drenched political essays like this one is to enrage the base while at the same time divert discussion away from the outcome of the Democratic Party's policy failures.
Talking about Trump's alleged racism absorbs attention that could be shown on black-on-black violence in the cities (ruled for decades by the Democratic Party). Then there's Obamacare's budget-busting failures, a flat-lining economy, the hinky changes made to fake a reduced unemployment rate, the drive by the national Chamber of Commerce and multinational corporations to import more workers in the visa program (keeping wages down for low-income workers, including minorities), and the overall moral and policy weaknesses of Hillary Clinton.
All of these issues having far more effect on the typical voter than what Trump thinks of, well, just about anything. But since they will hurt the Democratic Party if they're discussed openly, it's a guarantee that they will not.
It's psychology all right, but on both sides its got nothing to do with pathology. It's just the same old tribalism of our people vs those people, the only difference being that in the modern world its not tribe and nation anymore that define the group. Tribes are now dynamically created by social circumstance, who we know. Family now counts for much less than classmates, and they count for much less than Facebook and Twitter.
Only white men or Republicans can be held responsible for their actions while in public office. (Although they do what they do because they are crazy, they are the only ones who are responsible.) Criticism of white men and Republicans is centrist discussion of the national interest; so, if you want centrist discussion of the national interest, vote for white men or Republicans. Only they will try to protect you from ISIS; only they will try to stop abortion which is wiping out the blacks; only they will try to check immigration (unemployment among blacks is at 25%, why bring in competitors?). Only they will propose various different policies to be debated and to be chosen among by voters in a democracy.
Criticism of Obama is racist; criticism of Hillary is sexist. If you want ranting on the origins of Vietnamese sandwiches, or football logos or concussions, led by neurotic hysterical women (some of whom are wishmen and some of whom are wishwomen - another group that cannot be criticized) then vote for Democrats of any type - they all have victimhood-cultural appropriation and consequent untouchability in common. Even known rapists and their female beards, i.e. defenders, are feminists - if they are Democrats. (Rampo in the White House, Part II - one man's rampage through the land of PC, the story continues.) So Democrats will not propose ways to keep you safe and employed or to save the black race on this continent. But you can glow with self approval.
Which side are you on?
You can reasonably charge Donald Trump with being a jerk, but calling him a racist is unfair. In a way it's kind of racist to criticize white people you don't like of being racist. The racist term for white people isn't "cracker" or " honky" but "racist".........Anyway, Hillary Trump went to his wedding. Hillary isn't the kind of person who would go to a racist's wedding. She and her husband associate only with the best people on earth. Beyond this, Donald Trump used to hang out with rap celebrities so you know he's a good man without any racial prejudices. Rap celebrities know how to judge a mans character. They're just as discerning as the Clintons......James Garner never acquired his fair share of awards.
Prof. Althouse:
I don't see what's wrong with utilizing "garner" instead of "get."
The left, for decades, has been smearing America and Americans as racist. It has gotten worse since Obama was elected. Every criticism, particularly policy-based criticism, is labeled as racism. For the most part it is intellectual dishonesty. The race card is simply used as a tool to get weak-willed whites to shut up. The problem, of course, is that charges of racism has lost any meaning - if everything is racism, then nothing is. Calling Trump a racist has no real impact especially because we all can just laugh it off as "there you go again" leftist name-calling.
When I see the word "garner" I think of an old radio program The World Tomorrow with Garner Ted Armstrong. Garner Ted was the son of Worldwide Church of God founder Herbert W. Armstrong. The show was heavily into end times prophesy and was on late at night before Art Bell came along.
"Prof. Althouse: I don't see what's wrong with utilizing "garner" instead of "get.""
Very funny. I garner it.
There is a Garner, NC.
I wonder if the men there wear shorts in the very hot weather.
republicanyankee said...
-----------
If the decision had gone the other way (that is the other joker had opted for recount for the whole state), you would have said that the election was stolen from you. Be content that I called Al Gore a joker.
Assume everything the Salon types say about Trump and the Republicans is true. What are they going to do if he wins and the Republicans maintain control of the Congress? Stamp their feet and have a hissy fit? If anything they ought to hope that Trump wins the nomination, not because he will be easier for Hillary to beat; he isn't, but rather because Trump is less socially conservative and less of a small government type than Cruz and possibly Rubio.
The thing is the Left has so desensitized the bulk of the country with its bien pensant condescension that it finds that it needs too amplify the volume to be heard by the masses but the noise is just annoying now to too many people who no longer listen or care. If you are going to do the time, might as well commit the crime, the boy cried wolf once too many times. I could be wrong, I never thought that Obama would be elected never mind reelected but it feels like a wave is building, one against the Left, something like Nixon's Silent Majority which wasn't all that silent for those who wanted to see and hear.
I suppose there are people who oppose illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America because they are bigotted against Latinos, and so they support Tromp as the candidate that takes the strongest position against illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. But that doesn't mean that all or most of Tromp's support comes from bigots, nor does it mean that opposition to illegal immigration is illegitimate. I suppose there are people who are prejudiced against white men and therefore support Hillary! But that doesn't mean that all or most of Hillary!'s support comes from bigots, nor does it mean that support for Hillary! is illegitimate.
The Salon article is an example of the kind of opposition to Tromp that helps him more than it hurts him. Salon is not alone. Too many of Tromp's Republican opponents respond to his proposals by saying that they are illegitimate, un-American, etc. Politically aware people are used to hearing arguments like this from the Left and they interpret them as meaning that the Left really doesn't have a plausible basis for its position. The better course would be to take Tromp's proposals seriously and show why they would not accomplish what he claims they would accomplish. Even better would be to show how different policies would better accomplish the goals that Tromp claims to be trying to accomplish.
"In my experience, people like Trump because he's rich. "
This is pretty silly reasoning, if you can call it "reasoning."
The appeal of Trump's wealth is probably a belief that he does not have to pull punches to suit donors who are anathema to the Republican base.
I recall Reagan, when asked about his background as an actor, responding that he wondered that anyone not an actor could ne elected president. Well, here we have the next actor. Trump plays the media almost as well as Reagan did and many don't recall how much Reagan was hated by the left and the media who believed him unstable and dangerous.
I am not a Trump guy but I do enjoy his ability to drive the left crazy with his manipulation of their attempts to corral him in one of their boxes.
At this point I think there is a 50% chance of him being the GOP nominee and about 50% chance that Warren will be the Democrat after Hillary implodes.
buwaya puti has it right. Salonis a tribal publication.
Trump has been a great addition to the campaign. How refreshing to have someone who cuts through the PC media.
Not saying I will vote for him in the primary, though. Will definitely vote Trump, if he wins the primary. Hillary v Trump is a no-brainer.
But the jury is still out whether he is the best candidate to beat Hillary. Although the Donald isn't a traditional Conservative, he has taken conservative positions on ISIS and immigration. That's why some Conservatives like him, and why most liberals don't.
So, I'm open to Trump, Cruz or Rubio in the primary.
I do think the critics of Trump are way, way overblown. He's not a Fascist, he's not a racist. He has nationalist tendencies, which sometimes can be a good thing, and sometimes can go horribly wrong.
I also think the supporters of Trump should chill a bit. He's not going to be your savior, sorry. He will make deals (that's what he does) with the Dems, if he thinks it will help him politically.
But he knows how to draw a crowd, and is a entertainer par excellence. And, he certainly will be better than Obama or Hillary.
DeVega says:
Trump is providing a safe space and outlet for conservatives to validate their preexisting racist, xenophobic and bigoted attitudes. Their true selves are being actualized and “liberated.”
Pauline Kael 1972 "‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.'”. DeVega is simply Being There, in that special bubble that exists outside the common reality, sometimes sensing The Other like Kael but incapable of believing his lying eyes. I almost pity the fool.
"The problem, of course, is that charges of racism has lost any meaning - if everything is racism, then nothing is."
According to Ta-Nahesi Coates, the proximate cause of a Black cop shooting his Black friend was racism.
Many conservatives do not understand the rhetoric used by today's Left. The Left believes that literary theories ('structuralism') are behind politics and economics. They believe that the reason the biggest threat to young Black men are other young Black men is racism. Though Blacks and Hispanics, per capita, commit far more gun crime than middle-aged white guys, this is the fault of middle-aged white guys and the NRA.
I did enjoy the 2 minute hate on facebook where a bunch of people ran the "friends who like Trump" search and we're shaming friends and family who showed up on the list.
The egregious use of "garner" in the press lately is a feeble attempt to garner votes for Jeb! If we could just discern which GOP strategist used the word so frequently in the past, we'd know who's pulling the strings!
Any poor soul named "Chauncey" has suffered throughout his childhood.
Victory for Trump is an indicator of disgust with the other politicians, not of enchantment with "the Donald"
You've got to remember that these days, just as they've bastardized the word "liberal" (now a synonym for "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellator"), the "liberal" Hive has also bastardized "racism" and "racist." Now "racist" simply means, "Whatever threatens the Hive."
It is a real goddamned shame, if the Trump crowd's righteous hatred and disregard of the New York Times (and ABC,NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, etc.) is extended to the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, Commentary and the Wall Street Journal.
Not everybody with serious and genuine doubts about Trump is in the bag for Democrats.
Independents will neither read this article not vote for Trump. No matter, both sides will remain content in their convictions.
Posts like this are why I keep coming back to this site. While I don't always agree with her, Ms. Althouse is definitely among the most thoughtful people in the room when the topics of politics and media come up.
Thanks, Jim.
Not everybody with serious and genuine doubts about Trump is in the bag for Democrats.
True, but most of the rest that aren't are in the bag for establishment Republicans. (Which is very nearly the same thing)
That said, i can't see myself ever voting for Trump, but I sure as hell understand why someone might.
It goes without saying that Hillary/Sanders policy preferences are closer to Stalin's than Trump's policy preferences are to Mussolini's.
I will never vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean that I believe that he's being treated fairly by the media. Trump is a shitty excuse for a fascist or a proto-fascist. Sanders makes a great commie, though. He has expressed sympathy for the ends and the means of communist, totalitarian states. He honeymooned in Moscow, for God's sake.
The Democrats clearly have a commie problem.
He has nationalist tendencies, which sometimes can be a good thing, and sometimes can go horribly wrong.".
Look, after seven years of the most anti-American administration in our history plus the rampant anti-American propagande infecting our education and entertainment industries a little nationalism is needed just to begin to heal the sickness of our national spirit.
There’s something in the air and people sense it. It didn’t start with Obama, Clinton’s perjury regarding his sexual escapades should have had the Democrats going to the White Houses for a come-to-Jesus meeting, as Republicans did with Nixon, but party solidarity won out.
The Obama Presidency has broken all the old, unwritten rules that allowed the government to work without invoking the nuclear option: impeachment. In the old days if a President couldn't get congress to pass a law that he wanted the policy wasn't implemented. No longer.
Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway.
Official Washington won't utter the words "impeachment" because Republicans fear being called racists and Democrats - as the party of the Left - is OK with dictatorship as long as it's their dictatorship. Nixon would have survived Watergate if Republicans had had the kind of party-above-country position as Democrats.
Perhaps the "humble candidates—those with big ideas, but with respect for order and honor" are in the wrong saloon. The order and system that used to make "big ideas" work are temporarily inoperative. The world is in a state of transposition. It is waiting for an event, a man, a technology -- a something -- that can make the road from out of this dead end. That requires a skillset that most Western politicians don't have. Because voters sense that politics is in flux past experience as a professional public servant is deprecated. In a situation where past organizational knowledge is regarded as a liability, a businessman can be as good as an ex-First Lady. Trump may not have what it takes; the danger for many of his rivals is the public KNOW they don't have what it takes.
"So these people, in Buchanan's view, are not racists, but people who have been on the receiving end of the accusations of racism, and Trump represents them, as he stands his ground and wins for them."
In modern discourse, racist means "white person". So, anyone who has been on the receiving end of accusations of racism is almost certainly a racist. There is no point in defending yourself, the color of your skin proves you are guilty. The only acceptable response to being called a racist is to apologize and shut up. Oh, and hand over something of value.
Trump has not actually said this out loud, but he doesn't apologize, he doesn't shut up, and he doesn't seem inclined to hand over anything of value. That is a whistle I can hear.
I am sad to see Althouse spend time on the ridiculous, premature, media churning "campaign" that precedes even the Iowa caucuses by at least five weeks (and the Iowa caucuses are meaningless media events). The wholely artificial controversies that occupy the media are mere soap opera and do not deserve the attention of our inspiring blogger. Of course I don't have to read these posts and I usually don't but I can't help but notice commentary on these non-events take up a lot of space and, presumably, a lot of Ms. A's time. I think it's an even money bet that neither Hilary or Donald will be their party's nominee. My earnest hope anyway.
@Althouse: You said "Thanks, Jim." I agree with Jim, but I won't let you off when you aren't "among the most thoughtful people in the room when the topics of politics and media come up" -- as is unfortunately sometimes the case.
Well, Gahrie, how drunk do you have to get to vote for Hillary!?
I don't know that the racism thing works at all, except as an intimidation factor to prevent people from admitting their support in public.
My husband is a naturalized US citizen. He was born in Central America and immigrated to this country in his twenties. He is Hispanic therefore, and "brown" Hispanic if you know what I mean, with the majority of his ancestry being Amerind. No one would ever mistake him for white. He is the most intense Trump supporter I've ever encountered, and it is substantially because of Trump's immigration stance. Secondary, but still very important to him, are Trump's comments on restoring a manufacturing base.
My husband told me more than a decade ago that the illegal immigration had to be stopped, because this country was going to be turned into the type of country he LEFT. He said powerful forces were trying to make this into a plantation country, in which workers essentially had no rights, and wealthy people could buy all the power they wanted. I have come to believe he is right.
It's not stupid people who support Trump so strongly. My husband has a high IQ. Born a peasant who began working in the field when he was 12, by 16 he was the bookkeeper (using an abacus) for a plantation. He got the equivalent of a US master's degree in Costa Rica, and then came to this country. He had to go back to school because of course his degree was worthless. He learned English, got his degree, and became a biologist doing research. He holds a number of patents, although he is retired now.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans and in fact the entire DC/NY establishment is utterly clueless.
Black people are being hammered by illegal immigration, as are the young. Most Hispanic voters aren't for it either.
Our country is engaged in class warfare against over 70% of the population, and they are beginning to know it. The opposition to open immigration is because it destroys the bargaining power of workers, especially young workers. This is not a racial issue.
A second, and sadly ever more pertinent, aspect of the open border is that we cannot control immigration at all, and it is a national security risk.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, he will get a much higher portion of Hispanic and black votes than GOP nominees have been getting.
Well, Gahrie, how drunk do you have to get to vote for Hillary!?
If my nightmare came true, I'd vote Trump. Deep down inside, he's a fool, but Hillary is pure evil.
"Well, Gahrie, how drunk do you have to get to vote for Hillary!?"
I too would like to know if you people who would never vote for Trump are going to vote for Hillary? Really?
Moneyrunner said...
Clinton’s perjury regarding his sexual escapades should have had the Democrats going to the White Houses for a come-to-Jesus meeting, as Republicans did with Nixon, but party solidarity won out.
Since 1968, the Dems have cared more about power than the United States of America.
I think it's an even money bet that neither Hilary or Donald will be their party's nominee. My earnest hope anyway.
I'm beginning to be genuinely curious why people believe neither Hillary nor Donald should be the next President. If you approve of the Obama direction, Hillary will take you further down the road; unless you think Bernie will get you there faster. If you disapprove of that direction, who in the Republican Party do you really believe has the political ability to actually change direction. Or is there another direction, and you have a President who will get you there?
Keep in mind that the media, academia, Big Business, Wall Street and the permanent government bureaucracy all think that the direction we're going in is right and many are saying faster, please. So are you in favor of moving it up a notch, or have you identified someone who has the stones to bring it to it's knees?
"Nixon would have survived Watergate if Republicans had had the kind of party-above-country position as Democrats."
Pretty much why no president will be resign or be removed from office for at least another generation or two. Provided the Constitutional Republic survives that long.
AA: "It's psychology all the way down." Hmm. DeVega is pretty good at projection (or is this conversion?):
"I often joke about my habit of going to white supremacist websites in order to get a sense of how they read and interpret political and cultural events. I am never surprised or amazed at how white supremacy is a type of political psychopathology and the ways that it damages the cognitive, emotional, and critical thinking skills of too many white people. Reading white supremacist websites has been very helpful in other ways: Donald Trump is their spawn; they mapped out his electoral strategy years ago."
chaunceydevega dot com/2015/12/when-white-supremacists-go-to-see-star.html
(Wherein he points out the racism in Star Wars. (I've never seen any of them, so for all I know he's correct.))
Excerpt above from same blog
but to call them crazy is to do something that is, ironically, akin to racism.
I read something to the efefct that there's more prejudice aganst people with different political opinions, or who pick different sidees, than there is by race.
http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/David-Brooks-Political-prejudice-is-pervasive-5853678.php
There's a lot more political discrimination than I thought. In fact, the best recent research suggests that there's more political discrimination than there is racial discrimination.
Gahrie said...12/26/15, 7:04 PM
If my nightmare came true, I'd vote Trump. Deep down inside, he's a fool, but Hillary is pure evil.
I think Trump is also evil, but Hillary is more evil.
The Godfather said...12/26/15, 1:42 PM
But that doesn't mean that all or most of Tromp's support comes from bigots, nor does it mean that opposition to illegal immigration is illegitimate.
It comes from over 40 years of propaganda by a government agency, or people working for it - the EPA is nothing compared to the immigration agency. Opposition to immigration would be more logical if it was racist, but it mostly isn't.
Too many of Tromp's Republican opponents respond to his proposals by saying that they are illegitimate, un-American, etc.
Which is not actually an argument, or begs the question. Of course sometimes that works - a case could be made against blacks that's much stronger than the case masde against Mexicans. Nobody is making that case though, because it is precluded by the constutition. Nothing in an immigration law is precluded by the constitition so you get to see what people would do or would support without the Bill of Rights.
The better course would be to take Tromp's proposals seriously and show why they would not accomplish what he claims they would accomplish.
Difficult to do, since they use some of the same kind of reasoning when it comes to free trade.
Even better would be to show how different policies would better accomplish the goals that Tromp claims to be trying to accomplish.
Difficult to do since they don't have any good policies, and rely a lot on wishful thinking. You could have good policies, but they don't have ones.
@ republicanyankee said...
The election of 2000 wasn't stolen. It was fumbled.
The butterfly ballot and Democrats in Jacksonville, Florida telling people to vote on every page - when there were two ppages of choices for President, and picking two choices for president invalidated the vote.
Also the punch cards. which routinely lost 1% or 2% in every election for every office. The Reg Dem population in counties with punch cards was higher than the Rep.
The Democrats attempted to game the recount by correcting the count in some locations only.
Michael K:
about 50% chance that Warren will be the Democrat after Hillary implodes.
I doubt it could be Warren. Biden, maybe.
The biggest question to ask about Hillary is if Obama has given instructions that no presidential or Congressional candidate be indicted within several months of the election. If he wants to say no, he should be asked to issue an executive order to that effect, formalizing that no barrier exists to an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bill Peschel said... 12/26/15, 12:26 PM
Talking about Trump's alleged racism absorbs attention that could be shown on black-on-black violence in the cities (
Up by an amount that could be 10% this year, thanks to the "Black Lives Matter" people, which should be called "black lies matter"
It is not that it dsocurages police so much as it encourages criminals.It is may be very hard to reverse, because some of the consequences are legally entrenched, and won't be reversed in any case without putting more peole in jail, or intense probation.
Then there's Obamacare's budget-busting failures,
The failure has been postponed. But there is no Republican plan, although Pauk Ryan wants ro craft one.
a flat-lining economy,
Maybe not - the big change is more people on disability.
the hinky changes made to fake a reduced unemployment rate,
??? The statistic is flawd anyway, but what has been done on purpose?
the drive by the national Chamber of Commerce and multinational corporations to import more workers in the visa program (keeping wages down for low-income workers, including minorities),
There's not the slightest empirical evidence for that. THE ECONOMY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. If it did, a lot of other things would be true. It's a crackpot economic theory.
and the overall moral and policy weaknesses of Hillary Clinton.
The poor quality of the press is important here.
Sammy Finkelman wrote:
'There's not the slightest empirical evidence for that.'
No law of supply and demand? This is elementary economics, Mr. Finkelman.
Here is what it looks like:
http://true-progress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Supply-and-Demand-Graph.png
Move the supply curve to the right, to show what happens when supply increases. Where is the new equilibrium point?
Sammy:
1. 93 million Americans eligible for work who for some reason have dropped out of the labor force, creating the lowest participation rate since the stagflation era.
2. 100% of job gains in last 4 years have gone to foreign born workers in America.
3. Median average income has dropped in last 7 years.
Reconcile those facts with your theory.
Post a Comment