Adams goes on to observe that "the Clinton campaign has put together an impressive confirmation bias case that Trump is a racist," but: "In a contest for the office of the Presidency of the United States in 2016, crooked beats racist every time." And he doesn't mean that crooked is a more powerful insult than racist. He means that the person perceived as crooked will beat out the person perceived as racist.
What can Trump do? Adams says his message should be: "Clinton has a race-first view of the world that is corrosive to society./Trump has an American-first view of the world that creates healthy competition with other countries."
I said something similar a week ago:
I think what Trump is going to try to do — which he started yesterday — is argue that the true meaning of "racist" is what Democrats do, which is to openly talk about everyone — and to frame political appeals — in racial terms. What Trump said yesterday — about Elizabeth Warren — was "She made up her heritage which I think is racist. I think she's a racist actually, because what she did was very racist." The idea is: It's racist to exploit race, and they do that all the time. Democrats can be relied on to cite race continually, and Trump will have a lot of "there you go again" opportunities: They're trying to divide us by race to get political power for themselves. I will never do that.
Posts
70 comments:
You can't have racial healing when you have to get blacks and other minoroties pissed off so they will go to the polls and vote for you so of course its racist.
One thing that will work in Trump's favor is that so many people have been accused of being "racists" for a huge variety of reasons, including finding Islam's tenets appalling, noticing that some of the black people who have been killed by police were actually engaging in criminal activity at the time, and of course appropriating other people's culture by eating burritos and listening to Prince. It's a catch-all accusation intended to stop debate and has become meaningless to everyone who isn't on the progressive left.
But not that many of us have been accused of being crooked. That's a very specific charge and it's amply supported by Clinton's actions. It will be much, much harder to defend against.
Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar.
Right, the average person isn't constantly being accused of being crooked but they are constantly being accused of being racist.
Hillary spent 40 years branding herself crooked. Trump's just reading the labe out loud.#VoteDrunk
" the true meaning of "racist" is what Democrats do, which is to openly talk about everyone — and to frame political appeals — in racial terms."
That isn't going to work. The true meaning of "racist", as it is used in American discourse, is "white". It is not possible to disprove accusations of racism. It is only possible to "atone" for one's innate white racism, by refraining from defending one's rights.
"Dems are the real racists" will carry no votes.
Blacks and Hispanics aren't going to care. Both groups are fully invested in racial politics themselves (La Raza, BlackLivesMatter, NAACP, Hispanic/Black fraternities, societies, et. al.). As long as the Democrat ruling class is willing to pass legislation that they perceive as being good for my group, then they couldn't care less that said ruling class things of them as 'a racial bloc' or what have you.*
The only group that still pays homage to the idea that a multi-cultural, post-racial society is either obtainable or desirable is an increasingly diminishing majority of whites. And it is from this group that the "battle ground" states exist: states where traditionally democratic, working-class whites are seeing their homes and lives uprooted but may still be an election cycle or three away from entering the white identity politics themselves.
Whether or not it's Trump, the next non-Democrat to win the White House will be the one who understands that racial in-grouping is natural and the basis for the very concept of the nation, the white nationalism is acceptable and necessary if one is going to protect and preserve white people, nations, and culture, and that "racism" is a rhetorical weapon to prevent whites from advocating their own interests.
A Jew today can openly state "X is/isn't good for Jews." So can blacks, asians, hispanics, arabs, and any other group you care to mention. Until whites say "I can't support this because it is bad for white people," and ignore any faux indignation from the other side, we are a lost people.
I hope Trump is the beginning of the end of this period of racial cuckery. If he is, then calling Trump a racist will be as meaningful to his constituency as calling him a unicorn.
* That is not to say there is not political gains to be made here. But what must be pointed out is not that "Democrats are real racists" but that what is good for group A is inherently bad for group B, and split the anti-white coalition. For example, supporting Islamic immigration means that times are going to get rather hard for the gays. Increased Hispanic immigration not only wipes out black communities, but it also means increasing portions of the government programs pie aimed at that demographic.
Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar - Unknown
Preach it sister! But not a six pointed star! Especially when that star is pointed at our royal self! We shall no longer tolerate this kind of Lese majeste!
There is little evidence that Trump is a racist. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Hillary is a crook.
Szoszolo said...
"It's a catch-all accusation intended to stop debate and has become meaningless to everyone who isn't on the progressive left."
You are correct about the intention. Unfortunately, most white people are still intensely uncomfortable with recognizing and admitting that they are, like everyone else on Earth, racist. Let alone asserting the obvious fact that there are large and important differences between races, which one ignores at ones peril.
Right, Hillary plays the race and gender cards constantly. They are her strong suit. Maybe her only suit.
Charming.
"Crooked" versus "racist." Can't wait to vote for one or the other as leader of the free world.
I'll say this, however. It is too bad that Scott.Adams is so obsessed with emotions and messaging. Because the fact is, Hillary Clinton is and has been dishonest. And Donald Trump (prone to saying oafishly race-stereotyping things) is probably less of a racist than most Americans, of all races.
But it was Adams himself who wrote that facts don't matter.
I look forward to the coming bumper sticker:
Hillary! Never indicted!
The elder statesman for race relations among Democrats is Al Sharpton and the GOP can't doing anything with that?
Dems are so far out of the mainstream on race, and all it will take is for someone to notice.
Most Americans still believe at looking at people as people first, not as a race. Enlightened Democrats will tell you that is impossible.
Most Americans believe the U.S. is a melting pot. Enlightened Democrats call it a "tossed salad< with each culture remaining separate.
Most Americans believe the best person should get the job, regardless of race. Enlightened Democrats believe in racial preferences.
In fact, most of what Americans believe about race relations would get them in trouble if they taught at a typical American university. Once one leaves campus, a different belief system is in play.
Believe it or not, in 2016, the Right is right on race. Democrats must be amazed that the GOP is too timid to take advantage of that.
A racist is someone who disagrees with a Scientific Progressive about any political or social issue.
In short, the politics of [class] diversity, female chauvinism, redistributive change, anti-native activism, selective laws and standards, abortion rites and Planned Parenthood are a winning combination.
Of course crooked beats racist! Vote for the crook, it's important!
I think the real question is whether claims of "racism" today have become so wild and outlandish that people just tune it out. Certainly the posh classes react to the epithet with prudish horror, as though it were the evil eye, or a woman's ankle, but I am not sure the masses have quite the same reaction.
I actually agree with most of what Adams wrote here, except the part about Trump holding his fire until after the Dem convention--the Dems are stuck with Hillary and I think Trump knows it. The key for Trump (as well as Clinton) is to make this election all about the opponent. Attack, constantly--get it to the point where at the very least you've talked people out of voting who would normally vote for that person.
And he's right that crooked will beat racist--consider what the voter thinks of himself (which is a large part of voting--convincing yourself you supported the better option). A voter can live with themself (and their friends and peers can stomach them) when they vote for a crook (after all, all politicians are crooks--and Trump and Clinton are egregious examples of this). But to vote for a racist? Racism is like what communism used to be--a pariah-inducing epithet.
I just don't think "Hillary's the real racist!" is going to work. Trump has given them so much ammunition for so long it's impossible to unring the bell. He'll need to convince people that they can live with a bigot if enough other things outweigh that fact.
The reason white people are so vulnerable to the charge of racism is that we all know perfectly well that we don't just prefer to live around other whites, we will do whatever it takes to avoid living around blacks, or even worse, sending our kids to school with them. Which is to say, we are racist, to the core, and we know it. Of course, the more intelligent 30% of black people feel exactly the same way, which is why they get so upset when we infringe their right to live next to white people by moving away.
Why white people should be ashamed that we are desirable neighbors is not clear to me, but there you have it.
The Orientals are way ahead of whites in figuring this shit out, partly because they don't have all the slavery/Jim Crow cultural baggage to haul around, and partly because the discrimination against them is even more overt and damaging than that against whites. Perhaps also because they are a bit smarter than whites, and view the game from an outsider's perspective. They will be valuable allies as more and more whites catch on to the racket that is Democrat-Run America. And they also make good neighbors.
Remembering When Trump Forced Palm Beach to Accept Blacks and Jews
Of all the silly attacks on Donald trump is the accusations that he is a racist, whereas the democrats love minorities. Almost everyone is aware that Donald Trump opened a resort in Palm Beach by the name of Mar-a-Lago. But what most people don’t remember is that the liberals in Palm Beach wouldn’t allow Blacks and Jews to join the golf clubs there. Palm Beach fought against allowing Trump to open his golf club that welcomed both Blacks and Jews.
Donald Trump sent the city council a copy of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, a movie that starred Sidney Portier who was in love with a white woman and rejected their daughter’s fiance because he was black. He then sued the city for 100 million dollars in order to get his course approved. He finally won and the other golf courses in Miami were forced to desegregate.
At the time there was an article written for the WSJ that included input from Abe Foxman, the longtime head of the Anti-Defamation League:
Mr. Trump also has resorted to the courts to secure his foothold here, and many residents wince at the attention his legal battles with the town have drawn — to the town in general, and to the admission practices at some of Palm Beach’s older clubs in particular.
…The culture clash began to approach a climax last fall, when Mr. Trump’s lawyer sent members of the town council a copy of the film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a film that deals with upper-class racism. Mr. Trump then approached the town council about lifting the restrictions that had been placed on the club. He also asked some council members not to vote on the request because their membership in other clubs created a conflict of interest.
Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages.
… Mr. Foxman seems pleased that Mr. Trump has elevated the issue of discriminatory policies at social clubs. “He put the light on Palm Beach,” Mr. Foxman says. “Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.”
In recent weeks, Mr. Foxman says, the league has received calls from Jewish residents telling of how Palm Beach clubs are changing. Locals concur that in the past year, organizations such as the Bath and Tennis Club have begun to admit Jewish patrons. The Palm Beach Civic Association, which for many years was believed to engage in discriminatory behavior, this month named a Jewish resident as its chief officer.
Trump's Palm Beach Club Roils the Old Social Order
By JACQUELINE BUENO Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Updated April 30, 1997 12:01 a.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB862335923489989500
I think the idea that Hillary is out for herself - at all times - is one that can stick and have the desired effect. How can lying, crooked Hillary be counted upon to do anything for anyone but herself?
It's a version of this: "Her campaign slogan is 'I'm with her.' You know what my response to that is? I'm with you, the American people."
It won't be easy, but it needs to be made more continuously and forcefully, so that on the issues of trade, immigration, Wall Street, jobs, etc. Hillary isn't REALLY on anyone's side but her own.
"Unfortunately, most white people are still intensely uncomfortable with recognizing and admitting that they are, like everyone else on Earth, racist."
That's true, but the way that usually works in practice is that white people become defensive when they are personally accused of being racist. As you note, it's not possible to disprove racism, at least not when it's a thought crime or a simply-existing-as-a-white person crime, as opposed to actually doing something to someone based on their race. Discomfort, defensiveness, and exasperation ("what can I possibly say to prove I'm not a racist?") are a natural response.
But when someone else is being accused of racism for saying out loud the things that many of us think, as Trump has been doing, the racism charge doesn't fly, except with the sort of people who already believe that all white people, all Republicans (of any color), and all conservatives (of any color) are racists.
I suspect that the label of misogynist will prove far more sticky for Trump than racism. But I agree with Adams that it's 100% true that in the eyes of the public at large there is no greater sin than being racist. And being a misogynist may be a close second. I'm not kidding when I say that being a cold blooded murderer is generally looked upon as less of a sin than being a racist or a misogynist. And certainly being a crook is much less of a sin. And that's what this election will come down to: Who is the lesser sinner? So on that front, Hillary wins handily.
The racist label could help take Trump out before the Republican Convention is over. Remember Paul Ryan saying about Trump that he made a “textbook racist statement” when Trump referred to a judge’s Mexican heritage? Apparently Ryan saw an opening because he was so quick to label Trump with the word "racist.". Ryan ran for VP himself so he knows how negative words have power to destroy candidates. Quite possibly, Ryan might make a play for the nomination if the NeverTrump crowd succeeds in getting enough delegates to abstain from the first ballot.
Crooked Hillary will stick because she is a crook. Even Democrats know that.
"I think the idea that Hillary is out for herself - at all times - is one that can stick and have the desired effect. How can lying, crooked Hillary be counted upon to do anything for anyone but herself?"
I wouldn't count on that, for the same reason the same charge doesn't work against Trump--the core supporters say "they're sneaky and greedy for me and the things that I want!" The idea being those qualities can be turned against our enemies, and thus become virtues. Never mind that neither Trump nor Hillary has any problem turning on their supporters the minute it's convenient for them.
"Never mind that neither Trump nor Hillary has any problem turning on their supporters the minute it's convenient for them." They will, and it's their one redeeming virtue. Hill is enough of a bitch to want payback from O and his minions, to turn to the GOP if Progs turn nasty, and to take the fight to our enemies abroad if the mood strikes her. Hill and Bill unbound will be a sight to behold.
"But when someone else is being accused of racism for saying out loud the things that many of us think, as Trump has been doing, the racism charge doesn't fly, except with the sort of people who already believe that all white people, all Republicans (of any color), and all conservatives (of any color) are racists."
Yes, and when people vote the secret ballot, they don't have to worry about being personally accused of being racist which is why I think Trump will do better than the polls indicate.
Szoszolo said...
But when someone else is being accused of racism for saying out loud the things that many of us think, as Trump has been doing, the racism charge doesn't fly...
I think there is something of a Gran Torino effect here. Walt held racist views and told racist jokes, but was fundamentally a good man. He worked hard all his life, supported his family, paid his taxes ( except for the profit on the boat and motor ( it's the same a stealing )) and in the end was willing to sacrifice his life to help others. Most white men can relate to Walt, or at least relate their father to Walt. ( Maybe not so far as laying down their life, but still fundamentally good men )
So hearing snot-nosed college-aged liberal pussies treating every micro-aggression as a mortal sin really doesn't sit well.
I agree that crooked beats racist. But crooked undermines the trust of people. Trump has been successful in this regard. People don't trust politicians, Dem or GOP. Hillary may be the least trusted ever. Will make her a weak president. Maybe Adams is misjudging Trump's intentions. He doesn't care about winning the election. He cares about accelerating the destruction of the GOP and Dem parties.
Does that mean we are going to see bumper stickers saying:
"Vote for the racist. It's really important."
John Henry
You know, if Clinton is elected President, her entire administration is going to be set up on a private Email server, right?
I mean, at this point, what difference does it make? Why wouldn't she do that? What's the downside?
In all fairness, with all he's got going for him, Trump probably is a racist if he's never banged a black chick.
Blogger Sebastian said...
"Never mind that neither Trump nor Hillary has any problem turning on their supporters the minute it's convenient for them." They will, and it's their one redeeming virtue. Hill is enough of a bitch to want payback from O and his minions, to turn to the GOP if Progs turn nasty, and to take the fight to our enemies abroad if the mood strikes her. Hill and Bill unbound will be a sight to behold.
This is something voters should be taking into consideration.
I saw today that Ben Shapiro was tweeting something along the lines of, "Trump has said he will send the IRS after his political enemies" or maybe he specified Jeff Bezos or something.
This totally misses the point. Maybe Trump did say that and maybe Trump is planning that.
Let's suppose Trump is just as bad as Hillary is in regards to the rule of law.
Who do you think the Media is going to go after and which party do you think will turn on their candidate if they do?
And that's the point.
@ EDH 2:22Pm A valuable addition to the Trump literature. I had no idea. That's real commitment to diversity. Thanks.
"I saw today that Ben Shapiro was tweeting something along the lines of, "Trump has said he will send the IRS after his political enemies" or maybe he specified Jeff Bezos or something."
Get real, all the IRS employees are Dems and they won't go after other Dems.
Trump is no David Duke. The people who think he is David Duke are already in her choir. But there are many people who might have voted for her 20 years ago who have felt the sting of that same accusation when they thought they were just standing up for their rights. When is it okay for them to stand up for their rights? The left has sliced and diced the broad New Deal coalition away. Those people probably won't talk to pollsters, either.
Democrats: You'll be voting in Richard Nixon as President.
The underlying truth of the "branding" matters. Hillary is crooked, and Trump, for all his flaws, isn't a racist.
If the Clinton campaign stays with this old chestnut instead of hammering away at real things they're going to lose, and it's not like they don't have anything else to work with.
Trump has already tried out his killshot on Hillary, and it will work. "Rigged." That's all you are going to hear in August, September, and October. The DNC convention will provide tons of confirmation for it.
No American wants to participate in a rigged system, and that counts most Hillary voters as well. This will suppress Dem turnout and enrage Pub turnout. And at the end of that, when "rigged rigged rigged" has destroyed all respect for the state and the democratic process, thanks to Comey and Clinton?
You get two choices. President-elect Trump, or civil war. Without rule of law and a credible vote, free of fraud (and the second depends on the first), there is no democratic representation. We've demonstrated how we react to taxation without representation.
"You get two choices. President-elect Trump, or civil war."
Sounds similar to the threat that sleazy Roger Stone made about the possibility of riots if Trump didn't get the nomination. So now Trumpkins threaten "civil war" if they don't get their way? This is the lunacy of Trumpism.
I find Scott Adams strangely unpersuasive in this post. On the other hand, his PostScript seems much more persuasive as to the real advantage Hillary has in this electoral race:
"It isn’t safe to be viewed as a Trump supporter where I live. My politics don’t align with either candidate, but backing Clinton reduces my odds of dying at the hands of my fellow citizens."
Scott Adams writes: "Trump has an American-first view of the world that creates healthy competition with other countries."
On Jan. 9, 1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a memo to President-elect Richard Nixon, that contained the political saying of the century: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." So Dilbert has his cartoon facts and I have mine.
Stating that The Donald has "an American-first view of the world" would have us ignore that this repugnant, shallow, self-absorbed man has neither the intelligence nor introspection to see beyond himself.
The solipsistic world of Trump begins and ends with Donald Trump. Nothing, and no one else, even exists. That is why he is so rude and unlikable and it is why he is such a pathological liar - telling one lie after another.
Bribing politicians, associating with criminals, bankrupting his companies which unfavorably affected his employees, vendors, investors and stockholders; lying in court, deceiving his customers and tenants; all part of the rent-seeking Trump adventures. Crooked Trump is no better than Hillary - never has been, never will be.
".....but backing Clinton reduces my odds of dying at the hands of my fellow citizens."
It's not Democrats who are threatening civil war if their candidate doesn't get elected, it's Trumpists.
"You get two choices. President-elect Trump, or civil war."
Crooked Trump is no better than Hillary - never has been, never will be.
Well, I'll disagree.
Hillary bankrolls everything on the backs of the American Taxpayer, and cheerfully takes bribes from foreign Governments, bribes that are gussied up and made fragrant because they go to the Clinton Global Initiative. Trump has bankrolled things on the backs of his family's money, along with tax breaks that any businessman (or woman) can take advantage of. I would claim that Hillary is far more a grifter than Trump.
I predict Hillary will never debate Donald Trump, explaining his presence is demeaning to vast numbers of voters. When she is in public, her support falls. Being on the same stage as Trump runs the risk of making her look foolish and dishonest, so she just won't do it.
Sounds similar to the threat that sleazy Roger Stone made about the possibility of riots if Trump didn't get the nomination. So now Trumpkins threaten "civil war" if they don't get their way? This is the lunacy of Trumpism.
It's not a threat, it's a prediction. You cannot have a candidate that shreds the rule of law, and then elect that candidate amidst the appearance of fraud, and not expect that to result in violence by a free people.
You can't leave your keys in your car and expect it to not be stolen. That's not a threat to steal your car.
You can't smoke in bed, and expect to not burn to death. That's not a threat to set you on fire.
You can't shred the rule of law, and expect the law abiding to remain so. That's not a threat to break the law.
@MadisonMan said...
Crooked Trump is no better than Hillary - never has been, never will be.
Well, I'll disagree.
I guess it boils down to a choice as to the preferred direction of the inevitable screwing.
I predict Trump will never debate Hillary Clinton. Being on the same stage with Hillary will make him look even more like the know nothing he is. Clinton knows the issues and she's not afraid of him. I suspect she would love to make him look the fool at a debate. He's tried to get out of tough debates before, he will run from a debate with Hillary as fast as his legs will carry him. Maybe he'll have another fund raiser for veterans.
Phelps, it's either a threat or wishful thinking. Here's my prediction, America will breath a huge national sigh of relief when America at long last dumps Trump. And it will be huuuuuuuge..
Trump is an accomplished businessman whereas Hillary has never accomplished anything other than getting elected.
Selected, not elected.
Someone needs to take out the garbage and it looks like it will have to be Trump.
"Before today’s reverse-Watergate, it might have been plausible to judge this as a tie. Not anymore. Punishing Hillary through electoral defeat is a necessary act of civic hygiene if the rule of law is to have any chance of persisting, even in its current attenuated form. It’s a cruel joke that the beneficiary of such an act of civic hygiene is someone as unworthy as Donald Trump. The election of a sleazy TV pitchman would certainly be an indictment of the way we pick political candidates. But the election of someone who has committed such a profound breach of trust at the highest levels of state – with impunity – calls into question the very foundation of lawful government."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437487/hillary-clinton-threat-political-legitimacy
It was discouraging to hear even Fox News this PM shilling for Hillary! by McKelway starting out by saying that James Comey had stated that Hillary! should not be prosecuted and that nothing criminal had been found, when Comey very carefully did not say anything like that in his statement.
Jupiter said... "Unfortunately, most white people are still intensely uncomfortable with recognizing and admitting that they are, like everyone else on Earth, racist."
I guess you didn't get the memo sent out years ago claiming that "oppressed" people like blacks CAN'T be "racist".
You see, black hatred of whites is rationally founded on centuries of oppression, whereas purported white racism is founded on nostalgia for the days when blacks weren't just social inferiors, but slaves, not the uppity folk they are today.
See how easy it is to get yourself off the hook?
Mike Sylwester said...
A racist is someone who disagrees with a Scientific Progressive about any political or social issue.
***********
Yes, especially when the issue is "Scientific Socialism".
OTH, it is almost encouraging to hear John Dickerson of CBS, of all people, sounding like this is almost to much for even him to swallow.
As long as Hillary lives, people should follow her around throwing shit at her and bellowing "Shame!"
Trump - Adams.
Adams - Althouse.
Sycophancy relationships.
Ok, the relationship is weaker in the second case, but I don't understand why Althouse treats every brain fart from the guy as a pearl of wisdom.
Shows how effective branding can be. Democrats have used it for decades now against Republicans: racist, homophobe, sexist, etc. Trump is just using Dem tactics (being one himself, basically).
As I've said before, he needs to brand Obama as "Imam Obama, the Defender of Islam" and only refer to him as "Imam Obama" from here on out. Obama will go nuts.
The fool "Unknown" says:
Being on the same stage with Hillary will make him look even more like the know nothing he is.
Good. Let's see as many debates as he can schedule with her.
You are sounding dumber by the day.
Bob:
Trump is just using Dem tactics (being one himself, basically).
All we know is that he emulated a Dem in Dem land. It's an open question if he was irrevocably assimilated by their culture of corruption. The available evidence demonstrates only that he escaped with a tainted history. That said, native and naturalized Americans and pre-Americans (i.e. before the founding) have a history of escaping from Dem lands with their principles mostly and sufficiently intact.
Blogger wholelottasplainin' said...
You see, black hatred of whites is rationally founded on centuries of oppression, whereas purported white racism is founded on nostalgia for the days when blacks weren't just social inferiors, but slaves, not the uppity folk they are today.
I believe, Mr. wholelottasplainin', that the theory is that hhites have an authentic identity as oppressors. blacks and other non-whites have been forced to internalize the white oppressor's view of themselves as non-white, and therefore inferior. The authentic Black or other non-white identity can never be racist, because racism is a white people thing used to justify oppression of the other. When a black person says something like 'I'm going to kill you because you are white", he is not trying to oppress anyone, he is trying to fight oppression, or he is expressing the identity (ghetto hood) forced upon him by white people. When a white person says "I am going to kill you because you are black", that is oppressive and racist.
This can lead to non-intuitive outcomes, such as blacks killing one another as a result of internalizing white racism.
Whites have no identity other than as oppressors. Some blacks have expressed the belief that whites have no authenticate identity of their own, and have become oppressors to compensate for this lack of authentic identity. They can never be other than oppressors.
The guy who sounds like a Redd Foxx record, going on about Mexican judges, "Pocahontas", Korean students, his lone African-American supporter, how the Chinese speak broken English, and our African-American president, is probably not the best person to make the argument that we should all just stop seeing everything through a racial lens.
is probably not the best person to make the argument that we should all just stop seeing everything through a racial lens.
Actually, I think he's the best guy to do it...."this is what it looks like when White people act and speak like the rest of you have been doing for fifty years".
"Unknown" says:
Being on the same stage with Hillary will make him look even more like the know nothing he is."
Hillary will shriek, and be shown to be a very small next to Trump. The in-the-middle voters, who hate having to decide between a charlatan-blowhard and a criminal harridan, are the target audience. Hillary's problem is that she can't point to any successes that all Americans have gained from. The woman was for the Iraq War (enthusiastically!) before she turned against it. Libya and Syria are failures. She is on the wrong side of the public on trade and gun control and many other issues . . .
I predict Trump will never debate Hillary Clinton. Being on the same stage with Hillary will make him look even more like the know nothing he is. Clinton knows the issues and she's not afraid of him. I suspect she would love to make him look the fool at a debate. He's tried to get out of tough debates before, he will run from a debate with Hillary as fast as his legs will carry him. Maybe he'll have another fund raiser for veterans.
Trump doesn't have to do a thing. Attack Hillary and make her answer questions. Start with "Why set up a private email server instead of using a private email service like Gmail if your goal was to keep your non-work email private?"
This doesn't even address the sheer illegality of what she did, but she cannot even explain WHY she did what she did illegally.
It's not Democrats who are threatening civil war if their candidate doesn't get elected, it's Trumpists.
It's not mobs of Trump supporters assaulting people attending Hillary or Bernie rallies while Democratic mayors tell their police to do nothing to protect them...
When the next Civil War launches, I'll happily take up arms.
Post a Comment