This undercuts those who've been saying Trump says he's reaching out to black people, but he's not appearing before a black audience. And it shows that Trump is actively campaigning, making himself the news of the day, every day, even the especially obscure day that is the Saturday of Labor Day weekend.
What is Hillary doing? The NYT, on its front page, puts a Hillary story above the Donald-goes-to-black-church story, but look at it:
That's just about the worst news about Hillary to juxtapose with Trump's Detroit outreach. Clicking through, I see an even worse headline: "Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich." Excerpt:
The public has gotten used to seeing Mrs. Clinton’s carefully choreographed appearances and her somewhat halting speeches and TV interviews over the course of the long — and sometimes seemingly joyless — campaign, but donors this summer have glimpsed an entirely different person....
Another advantage to choosing private fund-raisers over town halls or other public events is that Mrs. Clinton can bask in an affectionate embrace as hosts try to limit confrontational engagements.
Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion.
“I said, ‘Let’s make it a nice night for her and show her our love,’” Mrs. Forester de Rothschild said.
पोस्ट्स
१५४ टिप्पण्या:
And Obama played golf....
Why are we referring to this Jersey girl as "Lady"? She married some guy.
We have words for women like that, and "Lady" ain't one of them.
C'mon, Hillary's spoken in black churches--and in dialect! (Can you imagine the reaction if Trump pulled that?)
"and sometimes seemingly joyless - campaign..."
That's one thing Trump has over Hillary: he seems to be enjoying himself. I recall earlier in his campaign he thought running for President was "beautiful." I'll take someone with that attitude towards what he does over someone who's begging the rich for support any day.
I doubt that Detroit church could afford her $250,000 per hour rate.
.....but, clicking on picture, article reminds that Trump may have discriminated in the '70's. In the '70's? Everybody discriminated, except me.
So ridiculously tone deaf ... and yet she's our next ruler.
No, no, no. Obama and his staff of amateurs was causing trouble in China. We almost had to bring Jack Burton in.
Way to turn the Narrative upside down.
Not much comfort, but Nixon-Agnew won in a landslide in 1972. Their shenanigans caught up with them, and by 1974 they were both gone.
(I remember the dancing in State St the day Nixon resigned. I also remember Paul Soglin being shouted down for trying to make a speech during the jubilation.)
More like "let us show her some money!" wasn't it?
When Trump loses the election after being outspent one of the themes will be his unwillingness to personally ask for money, relying instead on high cost mass techniques by others.
This brought back memories of a national Republican candidate who had a long track record of reaching out to and speaking at black audiences and black churches, Jack Kemp.
I found this poorly prescient article from WaPo in 1996
"What this means, very simply, is that Bill Clinton and Al Gore will have to fight to protect their voting base in the cities and inner-ring suburbs, rather than being free to carry the battle to Republican turf."
and the outcome? Dole got 12 % of the Black vote in '96. (though to be fair that was up 2% from GHW Bush's '92 result. In the last 40 years the best any Republican did was 17% by Jerry Ford (against a white southerner).
Should we be too surprised when some Republican candidates see no point in campaigning to a black audience?
This undercuts those who've been saying Trump says he's reaching out to black people, but he's not appearing before a black audience.
One appearance before a Black church does not undercut the contention that he is not reaching out effectively to Black people.
Freder Frederson, you're talking about marketing.
The people you're trying to reach don't always get the notion you're trying to sell. Trump is pretty good at marketing, but black America is a tough market. Used to be a good market for Republicans back when they freed the slaves, passed civil rights laws, and all that.
The big question is: can Trump sell this thing to a substantial minority of people who have been voting like lemmings for the last few decades?
@Freder That quoted sentence says nothing about effectiveness. It says he is reaching out and appearing before a black audience. That's true. Know one will know how effective his outreach is until the election is over. At least he is making the attempt. Save your judgements for when you have some facts to work with.
This is the first election in my lifetime that divides cleanly along elitist vs. populist lines.
mockturtle said...
This is the first election in my lifetime that divides cleanly along elitist vs. populist lines.
I would appreciate reading about earlier elections in American history which resembled this year's election. What was the lasting outcome? Surely it's more than just a face to be replaced on the $20 bill.
"This is the first election in my lifetime that divides cleanly along elitist vs. populist lines."
Good point.
I see the dividing lines as follows: Democrat elitists + republican elitists + SJW's + MSM + US Chamber of Commerce + government workers (ha) + government non-workers (read: welfare) vs small business + NRA + middle class.
This is the first election in my lifetime that divides cleanly along elitist vs. populist lines.
Perhaps that's one reason why more than a few of us are relegated to the sidelines.
Hillary hanging with her peeps: The Super Rich White.
Hillary just uses Blacks and they get zip in return for their votes. Wise up.
Pete
I've seen Trump and Clinton in person numerous times. Trump loves it. Hillary is forced, pained and artificial.
Trump gives a voice to people left behind by the establishments. Very early he offered a platform to Americans who lost loved ones to illegal aliens. Later it was to Americans who lost their livelihoods to insourcing (e.g. excessive immigration, refugee crises) and outsourcing (e.g. regulatory disparity). He opposes class diversitists' denial of individual, and, really, human dignity. He recognizes the moral hazards of progressive debt, progressive wars, etc. He also gave a voice to the voiceless, to the uniquely vulnerable, to Posterity casually excised by liberal judges, to babies who were aborted and cannibalized by Planned Parenthood et al at their mother's request. He's following a path illuminated by a compelling story that dispels conventional narratives.
Why shouldn't they love Hillary? They paid enough for her, didn't they?
What a lovely speech. Halting, awkward and humble. He went there. He toured the neighborhood. He talked about listening, which is exactly the point. The gift of the prayer shawl was beautiful and funny -- because who would think of Trump in that way? And yet neither side acts in irony.
I'm already on the #trumptrain and have been for a while, but this is the Trump that caught our eye in the first place.
I don't know if anyone remembers this, but during the primaries I said here on Althouse that the Republican candidate, whoever it was, needed to go to black Churches and speak.
Christian and religious African Americans have a lot in common with the Republican party. A lot. Especially on the socially conservative side of things.
It's absolutely worthless for a Republican to reach out to political African Americans like the NAACP. Those groups are all bought and paid by the Democrat party and they know where their bread is buttered. They'll never leave.
But the Black Churches in the United States are full of people who are just aching for the right candidate. And yet they continue to vote for the Democrat believing with all their heart that they mean it when they say marriage is between a man and a woman. Or when they say they want to see fewer abortions. They believe this because they think the Republicans are all a bunch of evil racists, so they've got no choice but to believe it.
I'm very happy to see Trump doing this. He should continue to visit black churches in the US. He should probably avoid white churches though. Black churches, being historically Democrat, won't have to worry about losing their 501c3 status. White churches will have it yanked in seconds if a politician speaks there.
Plus he'll get more press coverage at the black churches.
Smart move on Trumps part. Very smart.
Abs love MV. Totally fab.
100,000 per couple. Is that real
And yet 90% of blacks and most poor whites will vote for Hillary.
Pathetic.
Not to get all picky and legalistic, but... Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild? Her husband is Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild, British. So, if she has accepted and uses the title, which she has, she is, by any definition, an agent of a foreign state. So, let's review what The Constitution of the United States Article 1 Section 9 has to say about that: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
She does have a Office of Profit- she is drawing retirement I'm certain. And definitely is when you consider the benefits arising from her husband. So she quite clearly appears to have violated The Constitution with this fundraising sponsored by an agent of a foreign state. Hosting a lavish fundraiser is quite clearly a present under any definition of present.
I've been puzzled why National Review, the Weekly standard, Glenn beck, and websites like "Hot Air" and "Red State" seem so blase about Hillary being elected.
And then I realized that the Chamber of Commerce and most of the multi-millionaires support Hillary - not Trump.
And then it all made sense.
Hey that's no "Lady" that's my wife!
For $ 100,000 I'd want at least to hear Hillary do her dog imitation.
Straight Outta Hampton.
I am inclined to be pained by watching Trump yelling away at his rallies but I really enjoyed his tone, demeanor and message in this setting. He was humble and respectful. I can't believe this thought is swirling around in my brain but I'll admit it...I was impressed.
Clinton has already visited numerous black churches in her career. This would be nothing new for her.
That was a beautiful speech. Probably a lot was due to the high level of the church he was speaking at - he rose toward that level. And he didn't change his message, he still talked about making America great again.
Meanwhile Lady Yada was collecting money from the ultrarich and they were being told not to ask questions or talk - just smile and write that check. That was OK with them - they expect a big return on their investment.
Unknown, and she did it with the hot sauce in her purse!
It's telling that so many Trumpites are so excited at Trump's first visit to a black church. Too little to late and obviously pandering. He should've done it the day after he pretended not to know who David Duke was.
If DJT gets 10% of black voters, he's in.
>12% - "To the moon, Alice, to the moon."
khesanh wrote: Save your judgements for when you have some facts to work with.
If Frederson heeds that advice he'll never be heard from again.
Not to get all picky and legalistic, but... Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild? Her husband is Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild, British. So, if she has accepted and uses the title, which she has, she is, by any definition, an agent of a foreign state. "
********************************
Not "by any definition" but your own, it seems:
"Her third husband is Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (born August 29, 1931), who she was introduced to by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg Group conference in Scotland.[21] They married on November 30, 2000 in London, England,[1] after de Rothschild divorced his wife in 2000.[22] She is his third wife.[1] On the announcement of the marriage, the Rothschild couple was invited to spend their honeymoon at the White House by the Clintons.[23] The couple divides their time between homes in New York and London, the summer home on Martha’s Vineyard and the Rothschild family’s historic country estate in England. By virtue of her marriage to a knight, she is known *** socially*** as Lady de Rothschild.[6]"
---Wikipedia
Got that? "socially". IOW a social convention, just like using the term "Doctor" as a form of address to a PhD.
So...not an agent of a foreign state....no Office of Profit... no violation of the Constitution.
Any donors who are paying $100,000 per couple to attend a soiree with Hillary Clinton are not going to be inclined to be confrontational. People who are attempting to curry favor are NEVER confrontational.
If you want a President who is closely monitored by the media and Congress - vote Trump. If you want a President whose corruption is covered up by media with big assists by Google and Facebook - vote Clinton.
The only people who care are pundits and the politically involved, who the masses already ignore.
Go ahead and use this to ignore the impending reality of the election, whatever gets you through the night.
Good thing "Lady" Rothschild does not go by Ms. or Mrs. Using the title Lady really helps emphasize how much Democrats care about fairness. Nothing saysI stand for equality like an old family title.
Well, wholelottasplainin', the term "Lady" is aristocratic and a title awarded by a foreign potentate. Doctor isn't. Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild's finances are closely intertwined with her husband's finances, Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild, a British subject, who by U.S. law cannot contribute to American political campaigns legally. How do you separate his money and influence from hers when it comes to social soiree's?
That Democrat prosecutors in the US Department of Justice and Democrat prosecutors in Massachusetts won't look at it doesn't mean no laws were broken. Simply means that Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife continues to be above the law.
Appearance of impropriety. Get's Republicans prosecuted all the time.
Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, no doubt that was an expensive piece for the old British goat. Figures she was introduced to him by those well known grifters, the Clinton's.
"Just like using the term "Doctor" as a form of address to a PhD."
I wonder what PhD stands for...
The use of doctor for non-medical advanced degrees long predates physician usage. Back when barbers performed surgery there were doctors of theology. The tradition isn't a new assumption.
It can easily be pretentious to demand it, but it's certainly an earned and accepted title for much of the last millennium.
Trump is correct, he is running against the media. Mi hope he can punch through. It would be nice if his own party were not supporting Hillary.
I will bookmark this post, and calendar something like the Thursday after election day, to report back on (a) total turnout in the City of Detroit (I think it will be down, from 2012); (b) the percentage of votes won by Trump (I think Mrs. Clinton will win 97 to 98 per cent of the vote, same as Obama), and; (c) the percentage of Detroit voters who utilize Michigan's "straight ticket" voting option and vote for the entire Democratic slate (I expect that number will be up, because of the recently-publicized litigation over a Republican bill to do away with straight-ticket voting in the state).
Trump will have won nothing in Detroit, and probably not in Michigan. It may not be Trump's goal at all, to win anything in Detroit or Michigan. It may be Trump's goal, to use Detroit as a stage, for a performance intended for other areas of the country that he think he might win.
In any event, the numbers will tell the story in November. I'll get back to you all.
You do that, Chuck.
Unknown said...
Trump is correct, he is running against the media. Mi hope he can punch through. It would be nice if his own party were not supporting Hillary.
By what measure do you judge that the Republican Party is "supporting Hillary"? Metrics? Specifics?
I know that I am now getting four or five emails per day from the Trump campaign. And that is assuredly not because I have ever expressed any interest in Trump; it is because the Republican Party, of which I am a member, has given my name and email address from the several donor/volunteer lists I am on within the Party. The Party is devoting considerable resources to the Trump campaign. And I bet you can't find any Party support for Hillary.
I think it's great that the Party of the Little Guy is doing some outreach to the very rich at long last. It's a risky move but I think it just might pay off for them.
[That's a joke, son.]
Chuck,
"Trump will have won nothing in Detroit, and probably not in Michigan."
Maybe not, but it's still the right thing to do. I'm no fan, but I think better of him for this.
Hillary Clinton, Woman of the People.
Wikipedia:
"[Lady Lynn's] third husband is Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (born August 29, 1931), who she was introduced to by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg Group conference in Scotland.[21] They married on November 30, 2000 in London, England,[1] after de Rothschild divorced his wife in 2000.[22] She is his third wife.[1] On the announcement of the marriage, the Rothschild couple was invited to spend their honeymoon at the White House by the Clintons.[23] The couple divides their time between homes in New York and London, the summer home on Martha’s Vineyard and the Rothschild family’s historic country estate in England. By virtue of her marriage to a knight, she is known socially as Lady de Rothschild.[6]"
If Hillary is not elected president, Lady Lynn and her ilk will drop Hillary fast and hard. Drop, drop, drop.
Sisterhood is powerful. If the Sister is Powerful.
Without power, Hillary will turn into a pitiable outcast failure.
No wonder she is so anxious and afraid. Her identity is on the line, her approximation of a soul. With a loss she becomes one of the great punch lines in American history.
Nothing says "of the people" like the name Mrs. Forester de Rothschild, Maybe they can bake cookies together and stand by their men.
What 9:43 said. This de Rothschild lady, was caught back in 2008 berating Obama's "elitism" or whatever.
The perplexed responses back on the blogs to her supposed populism read along the lines of, "Populism? You had me at 'de'."
That was actually a damn good speech. Of course, I'm sure the MSM did their best to shun it.
The prayer shawl is GOLD. GOLD! Trump's favorite! And it's probably not even gold plated (which Trump is expert in), but REAL honest-to-goodness GOLD!
Wow. Trump's happy day!
JPS; Are you a suburbanite in Ohio or Pennsylvania? Or Waukesha County? Are you a voter in a place like Charlotte, NC, or Orlando, Fl?
If you are anything like any of those, your sentiments are almost certainly what was intended by the Trump campaign; to turn soft anti-Trump Republicans and independents back to at least considering Trump. To basically de-demonize Trump with those voters. There might not even be 3,000 Trump voters in Detroit. There were precincts in Detroit where Mitt Romney -- a son of Michigan whose father ran American Motors and was a governor of the state -- didn't get a single vote.
"During a visit to Detroit today candidate Donald Trump was blessed and given a prayer shawl by Bishop Wayne T. Jackson. However, as Bishop Jackson continued his remarks the operators of the Reuters news feed began speaking uncomfortably about the power of the positive optics for the Trump campaign – Via YouTube.
It appears the camera operator was initially reluctant to cut the feed saying:“I’m shooting this, I don’t care what they say,… I’ll take a demotion for this…. you?”
Moments later you can hear the intensity of the voice off camera increasing: “Shut it down” followed by the a voice asking “shut this down?” and the response “yeah”… “blackout“. Seconds later in the middle of Bishop Jackson’s remarks the feed is cut:"
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/03/hot-mic-reuters-intentionally-cuts-camera-feed-during-positive-bishop-jackson-remarks-to-trump-in-detroit/
(And then the camera feed shakes, almost like they wrestled it away from the operator.)
The Baron Rothschild once advised his son and heir "Never believe your own lies." Lady Lynn seems to have forgotten that.
Chuck:
"JPS; Are you a suburbanite in Ohio or Pennsylvania? Or Waukesha County? Are you a voter in a place like Charlotte, NC, or Orlando, Fl?"
No, none of those.
"If you are anything like any of those, your sentiments are almost certainly what was intended by the Trump campaign; to turn soft anti-Trump Republicans and independents back to at least considering Trump."
I've long believed that conservatives need to make the case to blacks that monolithic support for the party of big government is not good for them and not good for the country. This doesn't win me over to Trump but when he does this I say, good for him! not, Well I'm sure it's a ploy. (Even if it is. It's still something he should do, and could easily have justified not doing, on the grounds of just the futility you describe.)
Yes. I was watching it on FOX and saw the 'blackout'.
"There were precincts in Detroit where Mitt Romney -- a son of Michigan whose father ran American Motors and was a governor of the state -- didn't get a single vote."
It is interesting that you can say this as if it is possible in a fair election. This result is statistically impossible. There is no population in these sizes that is this monolithic. I know that there were many precincts like this around the country and I also will note that this never happens to democrats. The laws of statistics always seem to apply to them. But somehow there are populations with hundreds of people that impossibly have 0 votes for a candidate and it is only republicans this happens to.
This by itself proves voter fraud.
This by itself proves voter fraud.
Sure. Just like Republicans committed voter fraud in all the red state precincts where Obama didn't receive a single vote.
"Nothing says I stand for equality like an old family title."
As European titles go, the Rothschild one isn't that old. Its a Jewish banking family that was ennobled (several times in several countries) for helping monarchs raise money.
They also married into nobility several times, the other way to acquire titles.
But all this was during the 19th century.
I am not at all convinced that fraud needs to occur to prevent a candidate, who declares half the public unworthy of his attention, concern or interest, from getting a single vote in several precincts. It's as natural and obvious as a serial killer not getting a single vote in several precincts.
Only a Republican would be selfish and oblivious enough not to get this. When you go into a community and write them off, they're not going to vote for you. At all. If Romney had said that Wyoming should fall off the map and that he doesn't care about its voters, that state wouldn't have voted for him, either.
The revelation of what Romney said is pretty unprecedented in presidential politics. But he thought he could get away with it - and might've, too; had he not been living in 2012 where even lowly waiters can video-record your contempt for his entire economic class in front of a closed audience of rich assholes who feel entitled to buying off exactly the candidate who perpetuate such class warfare.
Ritmo,
I clicked through on your link. Funny how "a few" precincts in your link turned into "all the red state precincts" in your comment. It was also interesting that the example given involved a total of 60 votes.
There were more. That was just one example. Do your own research. That crap is rife throughout the right-wing low-info community.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"There were more. That was just one example. Do your own research. That crap is rife throughout the right-wing low-info community."
The precincts you linked to were tiny rural communities many with single digit populations. Statistics is not good at describing these populations. The democrat districts I was talking about had hundreds of people.
It is interesting you would use "low-info" as a descriptor. Any person who has completed freshman statistics and retained any of it would know that a triple digit population cannot have a monolithic response. I didn't think you were that willingly oblivious. Low info indeed.
And it is also telling that you do not acknowledge that Obama was far more dismissive of "bitter clingers" and small business owners who "didn't build that." If anyone totally dismissed huge chunks of the American populace it was Obama.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"That was actually a damn good speech. Of course, I'm sure the MSM did their best to shun it."
Trump is confronting Black people, Hispanic people, and most of the other non-wealthy people in the country with the fact that Obama and the democrats are right there with the GOPe in selling them out. More so if you look at who is getting all of the big money donations the last decade.
The democrat districts I was talking about had hundreds of people.
All of whom fell into precisely the category that Romney described so generously as, "people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people."
Just out of curiosity, if a vote for German chancellor was held in the Warsaw ghetto, what percentage of the vote do you think Hitler would get?
You can take all the statistics you want, robo-calculator man. Ain't no amount of ignorance of basic human nature that THAT'S going to overcome.
A "bitter clinger" is not being dismissed as thoroughly as someone who the presidential candidate describes as his job "not to worry about."
Also, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Romney might as well have offered to deport all those Americans about whom he couldn't give a rat's ass to Mexico, given your current nominee's priorities and rhetorical drama. It seems that's all the rage these days. Maybe that puts it to you in terms you can actually relate to.
All those small business owners. Poor, POOR people. I guess that's what you call "trickle-up" disregard. First you told the very poor that you didn't care about them. Now it becomes evident to wealthier groups that you're out to screw them over just as easily.
Guess that didn't work out as well as you planned, did it? And now your party's in open revolt against itself. What a pity.
Enjoy the election!
(OH, and I'll save you the suspense. Trump will also get a big fat whopping 0 votes in heavily Hispanic precincts, as well. That sort of happens when you write people off and declare your political contempt for them. Maybe if they were Republicans they might appreciate being shat upon. But get outside of your own party every now and then. Most normal people don't support people who openly declare their intention to screw them over).
I'd say it's absolutely amazing that you don't get this, but it really isn't.
Want a President who connects with minorities? Here's how it's done.
"Just chillin' in Martha's Vineyard"
I'd pay more for a lamb dinner than one of Hil's speeches.
Romney said some stupid things. He was everything that is wrong with the republican party. He served the donors and the oligarchs.
But.
Black people lost more wealth under Obama than any president in history. Unemployment and poverty in the black community has exploded. No matter what Obama has said he has reduced the standard of living of poor black people more than any other president in the modern era.
There is no way that every single black person in these poor crime and poverty ridden precincts supported Obama. The standard of living in these precincts feel more than anywhere else and they are dominated by democrats at every level of government. It just isn't possible unless you are racist enough to believe black people all think and believe the same thing and they were willing to get screwed by the democrats out of blind loyalty.
Yes, well..based on all the media coverage of O's hometown violence..
Ah..nevermind.
(If it doesn't involve a cop..especially a white one.it's not news)
Black people lost more wealth under Obama than any president in history. Unemployment and poverty in the black community has exploded. No matter what Obama has said he has reduced the standard of living of poor black people more than any other president in the modern era.
Nice bit of racism there.
None of the crash that occurred under Bush, NOR that his very white Republican legislators did everything they could to extend (McConnell declaring economic warfare in order to make Obama a "one-term president") - none of them get the blame.
Just blame the black guy who actually turned it back around to a 4.9% unemployment rate.
Thanks, Tea Party!
And even with the Republican grassroots openly revolting against the same big-money bitches running your party who never gave a DAMN about any working-class American - BLACK OR WHITE - the same Republicans throwing out that party and that philosophy, in full-force as it was throughout the Obama presidency... you still lay all the blame at the feet of Obama.
Your irrationality is overwhelming.
Talk about blind loyalty. You're loyally contemptuous of anyone who's not either:
1. White, or
2. A Republican, or
3. A supply-sider charlatan.
But being a white, Republican supply sider doesn't protect the working class, and generally leads to catastrophic economies, once they're done inflating the hell out of the bubbles that they create. Durable, infrastructure-driven growth is just not something that Republicans believe in or know how to do.
But now that your WHITE voters are finally up in arms against it too, I guess you think it's ok to pay lip service to working Americans. At least if they're white.
Bravo to you. Keep up this line of thinking, and spout off on it loudly. May your thorough (and thoroughly deserved) trouncing at the polls in November leave you with a throbbing political lump on the head that will last a good four years more, at least. It's the least that someone as uneducable as you are can receive.
6 minutes of Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/
I should go get some of Hillary's quotes where she trashed all of Bill's rape victims. At least Huma had some decency leaving her sicko husband. Hillary couldn't even divorce a rapist because she needed him to achieve her goals.
Hillary is good at pretending to care about people, but she does very little for poor people and they are just something she steps on on her path to power.
Hard to understand how clueless the NYTimes editors have to be to juxtapose those two stories that way. I think they really did think that story flattering for Shelob and her campaign. Simply, wow.
There is no way that every single black person in these poor crime and poverty ridden precincts supported Obama.
There sure is. Every single one of them knows what it's like to be knee-capped by someone else. Just the same way your precious Republican douchebag Tea Party legislators tried to knee-cap both Obama, and the American economy (as collateral damage) in the process.
I know this is true. And if you had any integrity, you'd be aware of it too. I've gotten in arguments with Republicans who have told me that it's not unpatriotic or treasonous to hold the economy hostage to your party's political ambitions. That says it all. You think Romney (and the "donors and oligarchs") are the problem? (Not that they seemed to be for you for thirty years. I guess old habits die hard).
Try starting with the same RNC that prioritized knee-capping and making a "failure" out of the first black president as a bigger priority than saving the American economy.
Absolutely shameless. And your willing blindness to it? Not much better.
Take responsibility for your own fucking party before racistly condescending to the same blacks who already knew what they were up to long before you ever did. They have no need to suck-up to the same WHITE oligarchs who still control your party! There's even less in it for them than there was for the stupid white Republicans duped into voting for ethnic pride over economic interests for decades.
Your way doesn't work. And your way isn't race-blind, and never was.
Your way was an explicit gambit to get poor whites to vote against even their own economic interests, as long as you told them that the damage to blacks, Latinos and whomever else would be even worse!
Get a clue.
6 minutes of Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off.
Yup. And she'll still win.
Amazing, isn't it? But she's a pretty lucky gal, isn't she?
How lucky she is to have opponents as self-destructive as the Republicans. And as hated as Trump.
But you love how hated he is. It inspires you.
It makes you feel justified in your own contempt for other American minorities; a contempt that you feel he shares with you so intimately.
Male bonding. Over race-baiting and xenophobia. How quaint.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Black people lost more wealth under Obama than any president in history. Unemployment and poverty in the black community has exploded. No matter what Obama has said he has reduced the standard of living of poor black people more than any other president in the modern era.
"Nice bit of racism there."
How in gods name is that racist? That statement is a genuine display of bad faith on your part.
I posted that a normal population of black people will have at least some variation. You post that they are monolithic because of their race. Your position is racist. By definition.
"None of the crash that occurred under Bush, NOR that his very white Republican legislators did everything they could to extend (McConnell declaring economic warfare in order to make Obama a "one-term president") - none of them get the blame."
The crash was caused by democrat policies. I condemn Bush for not doing enough to reign in Fannie, Freddie, and the big banks that Dodd, Clinton, Frank, and the democrats empowered where they created the mortgage crisis. I also condemn Bush for the bailouts. The democrats who ran freddie and fannie got rich btw.
Inner cities have been dominated by democrats for decades. Not holding them accountable for the absolute mess these cities has become is just stupid.
How in gods name is that racist?
I explained below. And you ignored - as can be expected and as any Republican should.
That statement is a genuine display of bad faith on your part.
Yep. And reading only a single one of my sentences (to selectively quote) while ignoring twenty others is apparently "good faith."
I guess maybe you're not a racist, then. You're just a typical Republican - ignoring EVERYTHING (race, class, the economy, the whole bit) and blaming what you're not able to learn from all that ignorance on people who actually bother to give a damn and pay attention.
"None of the crash that occurred under Bush, NOR that his very white Republican legislators did everything they could to extend (McConnell declaring economic warfare in order to make Obama a "one-term president") - none of them get the blame."
The crash was caused by democrat policies. I condemn Bush for not doing enough to reign in Fannie, Freddie, and the big banks that Dodd, Clinton, Frank, and the democrats empowered where they created the mortgage crisis. I also condemn Bush for the bailouts. The democrats who ran freddie and fannie got rich btw.
How easily duped you are. The stimulus was not large enough. Exacting vengeance on the banks would have done zilch for the economy or the working class (actually worsening prospects for both), but hey - like any Republican you're an emotional guy who puts his emotional needs above logic.
So here's the other logic you missed: We're talking POST-crash. Not Clinton's policies. Mitch McConnell's congressional political strategy POST-Obama, POST-crash, WAS TO WORSEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY - hoping (correctly) that Obama would be blamed and that he'd get a congressional majority by 2010. THAT WAS HIS PRIORITY. Helping the American economy (and the American worker) would have been a threat to his political goal. Working against Obama was the point, regardless of what Obama did. It could have been right-wing prescriptions, left-wing prescriptions. Didn't matter. Worsening the economy was their explicit goal, you dunderhead - because depriving Obama of anything good that he (and they) could take credit for was PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.
No wonder you vote Republican. You obviously prefer not to know things. Even when they flat-out admit to what they're doing.
Unbelievable.
A Republican could make a threat to shoot up your family and rob your property and you'd still vote for him.
As long as he said that he'll do an even worse job on the black family.
You get what you pay for, my friend.
All kabuki. Diversity is an epic fail. Hundreds of billions of dollars (at least) have been spent over the last half century in an effort to eradicate the social inequalities between whites and blacks. The results have been less than impressive. The first thing black people could do starting right now to increase their social mobility was stop having children with men they were not married, too. Simple enough. There are dozens of forms of birth control available practically for free. Yet, more than 70% of black children are born to single mothers. Almost triple the amount in the early 1960s, when Moynihan produced his (in)famous report. How does "white privilege," "white racism," the existence of the KKK, the legacy of chattel slavery and Jim Crow legislation that prevents a woman from not burdening herself with single parent-hood. In many cases in the black communities, fathers are not just unmarried but sharing custody; they are often totally absent from the child's life save occasional "drop ins" by the father on an irregular basis. Go spend a day in a predominantly black public school (I have done this personally in the course of my professional work hundreds of times). About 90% of the school's resources are devoted to behavior management. The level of social disfunction in the black community is massively underrated in the media and is pretty much unknown to the members of the elite who usually occupy wealthy white zip codes.
Rhythm and Balls said...
6 minutes of Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off.
"Yup. And she'll still win.
Amazing, isn't it? But she's a pretty lucky gal, isn't she?
How lucky she is to have opponents as self-destructive as the Republicans. And as hated as Trump.
But you love how hated he is. It inspires you.
It makes you feel justified in your own contempt for other American minorities; a contempt that you feel he shares with you so intimately.
Male bonding. Over race-baiting and xenophobia. How quaint."
You are full of blind contempt. You post bland inanities and poor associative attachments.
Yes I am happy about who hates Trump. When you were supporting Bernie, before Bernie sold his soul, Bernie was upsetting the same people. All of the people that are giving Hillary money right now. All of those neo-cons who teamed up with Hillary and Obama to fuck up the middle east hate him. The Oligarchs all hate him. The big banks hate him. You are just bitter that bernie and his supporters have absolutely no principles or moral motivation. They just want to take other peoples stuff.
When Trump's message gets through to people unfiltered it is well received. He clearly cares more about the average black person than Hillary does. He is going to be just fine. Black people are far more discerning and intelligent in general than you are.
You are full of blind contempt.
For stupidity? Yes, I find willing stupidity to be pretty contemptible. I explained to you already four or five times what McConnell was up to on how he ruined this recovery, and still you pretend not to hear it.
I don't care about Trump. Trump and Hillary are just two sides of the same coin.
But still, he'll get his ass kicked. And it will be good. Because you're in as much need of a lesson as her supporters are.
We'll deal with the both of you. We don't care which comes first.
The Oligarchs all hate him. The big banks hate him.
And, oh yeah. You believe that. Or that Trump has principles.
Trump will sell you down a river faster than anyone. Believe that.
Trump believes in Trump, not you.
Which makes sense because you don't believe in yourself, either.
Sanders never had the contempt for his supporters that you have for yourself, and that Trump has for you.
He's a malignant narcissist, for fuck's sake. Maybe more honest than Hillary, maybe not.
But obviously without a clue as to anything that he's not in solely for just himself.
Man, are you either totally dumb, or completely blind. Who knew that an appetite for rioting simply for rioting's sake was such a neglected and unindulged urge in Republicans like you.
Good luck on Trump's Day #1 in office, which won't happen anyway.
Black people are far more discerning and intelligent in general than you are.
"Your" blacks and "his" african Americans or just in general?
3% support. Enjoy, Mr. Poorly Educated. Trump loves your type. Information is his greatest enemy, after all.
And yours.
J. Farmer said...There are dozens of forms of birth control available practically for free. Yet, more than 70% of black children are born to single mothers.
--
My apologies for repeating..but one interview with a Madison teen girl so proud to disavow the peer pressure to have at least one baby by 17 put in striking relief the futility of the typical socially correct focus on birth control availability.
That was many years ago..
But talking with my brother and his wife who foster care Milwaukee babies (they have previously adopted 2), it was truly depressing hearing how the system gives repeat "offenders" chance after chance to prove themselves worthy of parenthood...each delay making the foster child that much less likely to be fully adopted.
"How easily duped you are. The stimulus was not large enough. Exacting vengeance on the banks would have done zilch for the economy or the working class (actually worsening prospects for both), but hey - like any Republican you're an emotional guy who puts his emotional needs above logic."
The banks made poor decisions with loans. They lost a lot of money. Deciding to let them lose money rather than give them boatloads of taxpayer money is not punishing them. The government had to take that money from us before they gave it to the banks. You seem to think the government just makes money appear.
"So here's the other logic you missed: We're talking POST-crash. Not Clinton's policies. Mitch McConnell's congressional political strategy POST-Obama, POST-crash, WAS TO WORSEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY - hoping (correctly) that Obama would be blamed and that he'd get a congressional majority by 2010. THAT WAS HIS PRIORITY. Helping the American economy (and the American worker) would have been a threat to his political goal. Working against Obama was the point, regardless of what Obama did. It could have been right-wing prescriptions, left-wing prescriptions. Didn't matter. Worsening the economy was their explicit goal, you dunderhead - because depriving Obama of anything good that he (and they) could take credit for was PRIORITY NUMBER ONE."
This is just stupid. The government has been borrowing over a trillion dollars a year and printing over a trillion dollars a year during the Obama presidency. We have borrowed or printed 10-15% of our GDP for over 7 years and growth is under 2%. What amount would you recommend we borrow/print? 20%? 30%? Why don't we just print/borrow 20 trillion dollars a year? Opposing Obama's agenda was the intelligent thing to do.
What you are too stupid to understand is it will never be enough. You can't print/borrow your way to middle class prosperity. You can only pad the pockets of the politically connected. At the basic level someone is going to determine where capital is applied. There is no government in history that has successfully done this. Trickle down government never works.
Bernie was upsetting the same people.
See. This is why you and Trump are just emotional people with no goals or focus than some silly, immediate emotional project.
Upsetting people. Oh wow, isn't that wonderful.
And then what? What next?
Trump/Achilles don't know. Trump/Achilles don't care.
No need for no plans. Just emotional warfare. Day #2 means finding out who to piss off next.
He won't build a wall either. He won't do shit.
Because "doing things" is not important to him. Pissing people off is.
Just do something emotional. Get praise, or insult others. That's all it's about with your 4-year old of a candidate.
What you are too stupid to understand is it will never be enough.
Yes it was. There was an actual number that would have been enough. We didn't go with it. Ergo, we had a more comfortable recovery than stupid, austerity-driven countries like Britain, but made it last longer than it did. There was a number that would have been enough. The number we went with was less than that by like half or something. We would have recovered quicker, and better - but Mitch McConnell had political priorities. Not economic priorities. Your ears can't even hear what your own party says.
apparently, the lady fingered racist sunset has the tinfoil hat vote. i haven't been having so much fun since '92, when bill tied all your nickers in a knot.
"Sanders never had the contempt for his supporters that you have for yourself, and that Trump has for you."
And Sanders endorsed Hillary AFTER the DNC was hacked and the emails released showing that Sanders never had a chance. Sanders knew he had no chance in the primary and he knew he was leading his supporters nowhere.
You are so bound up in hatred for republicans that you don't even notice others hate them too. It is interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the changes that Trump is forcing on the republican party.
Trickle down government never works.
Neither does trickle down corporate cronyism, your alternative and the only reason you ever came up with some cockamamie idea like bashing government in the first place. And Trump will do plenty of that - assuming he knows how to do anything at all. I mean, he's finally settling on that as the pretend plank to go with from here on out. What's it like a single economist who supports the guy? No matter, you're anti-economics too, I'd bet. Something about science and universities and knowledge being a great big anti-conservative cabal. Or something. But Trump won't care. He'll bankrupt you as quickly as he bankrupted his own businesses four times. And you'll love it. All about that loyalty, man! Loyalty to a guy who never did anything for anybody and who won't do anything for you. But at least he'll be a narcissist through which to direct your own lack of confidence though. That's important. In fact, that's all that matters to you now.
And Sanders endorsed Hillary AFTER the DNC was hacked and the emails released showing that Sanders never had a chance.
Who cares. No one cares. Going to war against the party wouldn't have done anything for him or his movement or the platform he got 90% of what he wanted through and for them to agree with.
You just take your own follower mentality though and assume it's about him, a person, rather than about the strength he built for his supporters. Which reminds me...
Sanders knew he had no chance in the primary and he knew he was leading his supporters nowhere.
Oh, ok. Boo hoo. See above. Worshipping a personality cult might be important to empty Republicans like you. But we don't have this problem you guys have of needing to reduce everything to a single person.
You are so bound up in hatred for republicans that you don't even notice others hate them too.
Lol. My hatred is less qualified and more honest. I don't have to pretend that they have my interests at heart, because I know they don't. You're just tied to them for reasons of ethnic conflict and superiority/inferiority - which doesn't mean a thing to me.
It is interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the changes that Trump is forcing on the republican party.
He is trying to get it to become a far-right European nationalist party, which may work and may not.
I predict it won't work. Americans are not ethnic nationalists. You might be. And your fellow Trump supporters might be.
But ethnic nationalism is more of a European thing, not an American thing.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
BTW, I'm not anti-Trump in that I realize that he's just a response to a problem (albeit less legitimately expressed) than the problem itself. But I don't think he knows what to do if he wins. This is how he and Bernie are different. Even Bernie I had doubts about what he'd do once in there, but I think he had an idea. I don't think Trump has an idea. Trump needs enemies and finds plans to be an abstraction. Bernie could fight his enemies but has no problems making or executing plans or working with the most difficult people if he needed to get them done.
Amazing. This will increase Trump's black support from 1% to 2%! Congrats Trump campaign, you really did it!
@walter:
"depressing hearing how the system gives repeat "offenders" chance after chance to prove themselves worthy of parenthood."
It's even worse than that. I'm not even going to get into the whole gene/environment/bell curve flytrap. That said, open your eyes and take a look around the world. In pretty much every area of the globe that blacks predominate (e..g the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa), they lag far behind pretty much every other country on the globe save a few spots in Central and South Asia. Look at the disfunction that has plagued Haiti even compared to neighboring Dominican Republic, never mind the rest of the Americas.
The best solution from a purely pragmatic perspective would be ethnic cleaning. Of course, there is not much way to achieve that in a manner that would not be shocking to any with even the slightest pretenses to a commitment to individual liberty and inalienable integrity. And so, we're stuck. Social tensions along racial lines will continue to plague us for the foreseeable future. The demographic diversity waiting for us by mid-century is a recipe for disaster. Look at places that are excelling in the standard of living department(e.g. Northern Europe, Northeastern Europe). Ethnically homogenous. Countries full of ethnic diversity tend towards instability, violence, and chronic social disfunction.
Trump has shown himself to be a true statesman and Patriot, meeting with the Mexican President, and entering the black church in Detroit. He is a uniter and problem solver, not the Ugly American Ogre that the media is trying to portray. Meanwhile the Crooked Old Lady hides from the media and only shows herself in totally scripted and "safe" environments, where she will not be asked any inconvenient questions.
It is not even close, and Trump is winning 60%-30%-- 10% undecided.
It is over, which is why the Criminal political class and media class are apoplectic in their constant quest to discourage the Trump voters. The media is being shown as the Political whores they are-- they will never recover from being run over by the Trump train.
It will be a Landslide of EPIC proportions for Trump.
Rhythm and Balls said...
What you are too stupid to understand is it will never be enough.
Yes it was. There was an actual number that would have been enough. We didn't go with it. Ergo, we had a more comfortable recovery than stupid, austerity-driven countries like Britain, but made it last longer than it did. There was a number that would have been enough. The number we went with was less than that by like half or something. We would have recovered quicker, and better - but Mitch McConnell had political priorities. Not economic priorities. Your ears can't even hear what your own party says.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-03/these-are-9-zero-hedge-charts-showing-obamas-recovery-angered-washington-post
I an see where people who have public sector jobs would think that the so called recovery was going well. They are not subject to the vagaries of the private sector labor market. Their jobs do not depend on the price of coal or silicon.
Reuters cuts pool feed just as Donald Trump is being blessed by Bishop Jackson
Reuters feed
It would be nice if his own party were not supporting Hillary.
By what measure do you judge that the Republican Party is "supporting Hillary"? Metrics? Specifics?
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Not supporting Trump = supporting Hillary. The endless #NeverTrump nonsense, even after the nomination, from establishment conservative media like NR as well as the continued bad mouthing from Jeb!, Romney, Graham, etc. should make that point beyond obvious.
Resident leftists and Crooked Hillary troll out in force today, after a day or so off. Where were they? Hard to attack Trump in threads about her email and her lies. So, making up for lost time here.
Think about it though - how elitist can she be, if she lets it be known that she is at a fund raiser hosted by a Lady de Rothschild? Not only is she (or her husband) British peerage, but also a Rothschild, the legendary European banking family. And the Rothschilds didn't just attend, they hosted it. Even in supposedly egalitarian America, this is a bit extreme, in terms of elitism.
The best solution from a purely pragmatic perspective would be ethnic cleaning. Of course, there is not much way to achieve that in a manner that would not be shocking to any with even the slightest pretenses to a commitment to individual liberty and inalienable integrity.
So this is how low the Althouse commenters have sunk. Openly calling for genocide, and no one calling him on it. I am disgusted.
Countries full of ethnic diversity tend towards instability, violence, and chronic social disfunction.
Like Canada and Singapore?
It is not even close, and Trump is winning 60%-30%-- 10% undecided.
Where did you get these figures. I bet it was from the monkeys flying out of your ass. Besides, according to you Trump is not even a natural born citizen, and is therefore a usurper and ineligible for the presidency.
"So this is how low the Althouse commenters have sunk. Openly calling for genocide, and no one calling him on it. I am disgusted."
Commenter Freder, commenter singular. Let's keep the use of the collective plural under control. J. Farmer is an interesting commenter. I think he wrote that in a clumsy "Modest Proposal" fashion to emphasize that short of genocide, the problem as he sees it is intractable. And therefore that the problem will always be with us. Besides I don't take 2:40AM weekend postings all that literally. It's not always the most lucid timne of day.
As for no ooe calling him on it, you just did, good for you.
"Like Canada and Singapore?"
Canada is catching up to us in this regard, and Singapore is a mercantile city state with a heavy handed penchant for public order walled off from its natural country Malaysia which DOES have its share of ethnic strife.
There are always the complaints that I, and people like me -- Republicans who opposed Trump's nomination and who are unenthusiastic about his chances in the general -- are never sufficiently critical of Hillary Clinton.
And it sometimes seems that ground zero for the NeverTrump movement has been the National Review Online.
Well, here is former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy doing what is probably the best job of anyone in the media this weekend, deconstructing Mrs. Clinton's lies and obstruction of justice:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439676/clintons-fbi-interview-what-was-cheryl-mills-doing-there
And David French, on the same subject:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439676/clintons-fbi-interview-what-was-cheryl-mills-doing-there
@ Chuck Thanks for links. The whole process of the private servers is enough to send one into a towering rage. My only hope is that the Clinton's hubris will, as in Greek tragedy, lead to their nemesis- in this case personified by Trump.
Chuck,
Thanks, but both links lead to the same article. Could you please add a link to the David French piece?
CWJ: I am so sorry to you and anyone else who clicked on that second link which was just a repetition of the Andrew McCarthy column. My bad.
Here's the David French link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439664/hillary-clinton-even-more-dishonest-you-thought
And I see from Drudge that the Weekly Standard (another capitol of NeverTrumpdom) is also shining the light of scrutiny on Cheryl Mills, who so richly deserves it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439664/hillary-clinton-even-more-dishonest-you-thought
If there is another publication in the United States that has done a better and more relentless job of challenging Hillary Clinton than the Weekly Standard, I have not seen it.
Digging in, Harold says: "Well, wholelottasplainin', the term "Lady" is aristocratic and a title awarded by a foreign potentate."
NO, it's not. It's not "conveyed" on her, it attaches to her as a matter of tradition when she is married to a knight, a "Sir", who *does* get that title from a potentate.
Is Michelle Obama an "aristocrat" because, by social convention, she's The First Lady?
Sorry Chuck, Same problem as before. Both links now go to the French piece. Not trying to be difficult. I appreciate your sharing.
R and B hallucinated:
"Mitch McConnell's congressional political strategy POST-Obama, POST-crash, WAS TO WORSEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY - hoping (correctly) that Obama would be blamed and that he'd get a congressional majority by 2010[sic]. THAT WAS HIS PRIORITY."
****************
If the GOP was in a minority in 2009, how did it gain the power to derail Obama and the Democrat congressional majority? What legislation did it stand in the way of in the run-up to the 2012 (not 2010) elections?
And why, now that the GOP *is* in the majority, aren't the minority DEMs engaged in the same tactics to thwart the majority GOP and help Obama? What secret political juju does the GOP have that the Dems don't?
Watching several Sunday political shows, I saw several instances of democrat operative saying that despite Trump's appearance at the Detroit AA church, AA voters will never vote for Trump because he spearheaded the birther movement. This appears to be the talking point du jour.
lol. Not my day for hyperlinking. I do apologize.
Here is the Weekly Standard piece on Cheryl Mills:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004156/
@Freder Foreperson:
"So this is how low the Althouse commenters have sunk. Openly calling for genocide, and no one calling him on it. I am disgusted."
First, ethnic cleaning is not genocide. Second, I conceded in the exact sentence you quoted that there is no conceivable way to accomplish it under principles of individual liberty and rights. Ergo, "we're stuck." That is, the problems that large ethnic diversity brings will remain with us for the foreseeable future.
"Like Canada and Singapore?"
Canada is trending in a bad direction, and it's still a majority white country by a mile. As for Singapore, have you ever actually been there? The social tensions among its various ethnic polities is palpable. In fact, Singapore's history of racial tension and race rioting is frequently referenced by the government to justify the firm hand it uses to keep social order. This is also why diverse countries often tends towards authoritarianism (e.g. Tito's Yugoslavia, Hussein's Iraq, Assad's Syria, etc.).
J. Farmer is an interesting commenter.
J. Farmer is a raving racist (worse than Cedarford) and a believer in eugenics. He is human scum. Achilles is not much better. And don't even get me started on traditionalguy and Michael K.
It is not just one commenter, this blog has taken a decidedly racist turn since Trump emerged.
First, ethnic cleaning is not genocide.
Ethnic cleansing leads to genocide. Hitler didn't start out advocating killing the Jews, just deporting them to Madagascar or anywhere that would take them. And I bet were given the opportunity to ethnically cleanse the U.S., you would drop your principles in a heartbeat.
SteveM said...Watching several Sunday political shows, I saw several instances of democrat operative saying that despite Trump's appearance at the Detroit AA church, AA voters will never vote for Trump because he spearheaded the birther movement.
Fail because "spearheaded" is a vaguely racist term.
I think the primary issue is culture (not race) and what drives it. The larger the role of government in one's life, the greater the likelihood of being shaped negatively vi "unintended consequences"..though that may be a misnomer in a lot of cases.
I get a bit taken aback by studies that attempt to tease out "intelligence" based on race since it strikes me impossible to rule out chicken vs egg connections to culture.
What other metrics might we use to divide people up and assign value? Did deep enough and there's bound to be one that suggests your intelligence..or other value a relative lesser.
Floating a term like "ethnic cleansing", even when qualified somewhat is reckless.
What ethnicity does Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell etc, etc belong to?
Freder Frederson notes...It is not just one commenter, this blog has taken a decidedly racist turn since Trump emerged.
In case you hadn't noticed, a lot political discourse in America turned "racist" since about 2008. Trump is but a reaction to it.
Doing this appearance on labor day weekend might make it all but disappear..even more than usual.
@Freder Frederson:
"J. Farmer is a raving racist (worse than Cedarford) and a believer in eugenics. He is human scum."
And yet, as "human scum," I rarely feel the need to ever call other people "scum" or attack their character at all in a political discussion.
"Ethnic cleansing leads to genocide."
No, most instances of ethnic cleansing do not result in genocide. Take a look at the world since 1918. Dynastic, continental empires vanished and were replaced by nation-states. The entire populated landmass of the globe was carved up into individual nation-states based on principles of national sovereignty and national self-determination. This has led to a violent spasm in many parts of the globe, and its consequences remain with us to this day. The first thing that happened on the Indian subcontinent after the end of British imperial rule was a civil war between the Hindu and Muslim populations carving the continent into different states for each group (i.e. Pakistan and India). Disputes over Kashmir remain to this day and given the nuclear power status of both countries is a serious flashpoint. What happened to the fake state of Yugoslavia following Tito's decline? Ethnically-based conflict. The borders of Syria and Iraq were carved from the carcass of the Ottoman Empire, and we are witnessing the fundamental instability of those borders right now. Hundreds of thousands of European and American Jews flood into Palestine. How great has that worked out? Central Africa is one of the most ethnically heterogeneous areas on the globe; and it also contains among the lowest standards of living on the planet. So, from my understanding of history and from what I see when I look at the world today, I don't believe diversity is a strength.
Now, Freder Frederson, here's a novel idea, instead of just calling me a "racist" or a "scum", or even if I just concede that both of those things are true, why don't you just tell me where you think I got the facts wrong...
Freder Frederson said...Where did you get these figures. I bet it was from the monkeys flying out of your ass. Besides, according to you Trump is not even a natural born citizen, and is therefore a usurper and ineligible for the presidency.
Even rational people had reason to doubt Obama's citizenship given his de facto British citizenship at birth due to his father's own. And, also, that pesky book promotional blurb which touted Obama as being a Kenyan. Surely you can do better, Freder. It's like you're defending Michael Brown's character. You may as well go back to hammering on Trump's infidelities and such -- you may still get traction there amongst the church ladies.
@walter:
"Floating a term like "ethnic cleansing", even when qualified somewhat is reckless."
I agree it was probably not the best phrase to use. But the point I was trying to make was that the only real solution to the problem would be separation, but given that that would be an unconscionable thing to do (and thus not a viable, realistic option) "we're stuck." And you don't have to be some stormfront far-righter to come to this conclusion. Read Francis Fukuyama's Trust and Bob Putnam's E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. These are not exactly authors known for their far-right disposition.
@walter:
What other metrics might we use to divide people up and assign value?
IQ is not a measure of "value" in any way. You are not superior to somebody with a lower IQ than you, and you are not inferior to somebody with a higher IQ. Anymore then someone with superior or inferior physical abilities. But the fact of the matter is that IQ, regardless of your opinion on g, or the general intelligence factor, is a very stable construct and has good predictive power for a lot of social outcomes. It's at least as correlated, if not more correlated, with parental socioeconomic status in predicting outcomes. There is also good evidence that there is a strong heritable component. Identical twins have more correlated IQ than normal siblings raised in the same environment, even among twins raised in separate environments not knowing they were twins. Ashkenazi Jews are about 0.2% of the population but have won more than 20% of the Nobel Prizes. Ashkenazi Jews also tend to have the highest mean scores on IQ tests. I don't think it's outrageous to presume that there is some underlying (though admittedly still poorly understood) mechanism at work here.
chickelit:
No; no rational person would ever have doubted Obama's citizenship. I know of no rational person who did, or who made a rational case creating any serious doubt about Obama's citizenship.
What's worse about Trump, is that he actually led the way, with some of the LEAST credible claims against Obama's citizenship. Trump's supposed investigative team going to Hawaii; Trump's obsession with the birth certificate. I might have given Trump a tiny bit of credit if he had authored an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he made a good case and discussed in detail the literary agent's pamphlet. Trump could possibly have made Obama and the literary agent look bad in an Elizabeth Warren sort of way. (No crime, no legal misrepresentation but clearly stupid fabrication.) But of course Trump never did that. Trump went for the stupid line of attack; I presume because that is all that he could comprehend, or all that he thought his tv audiences could comprehend.
In case you hadn't noticed, a lot political discourse in America turned "racist" since about 2008. Trump is but a reaction to it.
Ha ha. He's a reaction to the failed effectiveness of the racist Tea Party discourse that came before him. He's basically Tea Party 2.0.
That shit was all up in the air way before. Kenyan, Muslim, Arab socialist, anyone? The right always has a vaguely racist obsession with ethnicity, and Obama's election simply bubbled it out of them in more vocal ways.
Chuck said...chickelit:
No; no rational person would ever have doubted Obama's citizenship. I know of no rational person who did, or who made a rational case creating any serious doubt about Obama's citizenship.
Sorry, Chuck. I'm just an average American guy who happened to marry into an immigrant family and so I understand how these dual citizenship things actually work. I saw it from the get-go. I consider myself rational. Plus, you're missing the part about Obama's book blurb touting him as Kenyan. Althouse did an entire post on it, IIRC.
Even rational people had reason to doubt Obama's citizenship given his de facto British citizenship at birth due to his father's own.
Are you fucking kidding me? Every founding father was a British subject.
It's like you don't even try.
Rusty said...
Something predictably ignorant, biased and not worth responding to as it omitted the necessary comparison to countries that enacted austerity measures.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
Rusty said...
Something predictably ignorant, biased and not worth responding to as it omitted the necessary comparison to countries that enacted austerity measures.
I simply went and challenged your assertion. It must have had some validity since you cannpt dispute it on its merit.
I simply went and challenged your assertion. It must have had some validity since you cannpt dispute it on its merit.
You did no such thing, as my "assertion" relied on a comparison between stimulus and austerity-enacting countries - a comparison which you studiously (or probably just ignorantly) avoided. As such, your response has absolutely no merit whatsoever.
You might as well make things easier on everyone here and hang a sign around your neck that says, "I don't read."
It would complement your submissive, downwardly cast gaze quite nicely.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
IQ is not a measure of "value" in any way.
--
Hmm..then the focus on supposed racial/hereditary differences in this regard is for some other reason...
It seems at times these studies are sought to lend credibility to "intuitions" without specifying to what productive end.
chickelit said...
...
Sorry, Chuck. I'm just an average American guy who happened to marry into an immigrant family and so I understand how these dual citizenship things actually work. I saw it from the get-go. I consider myself rational. Plus, you're missing the part about Obama's book blurb touting him as Kenyan. Althouse did an entire post on it, IIRC.
I'm not missing the part about the literary pamphlet. And you're mistaken; it was not a "book blurb." It was a promotional pamphlet. Obama had not written a book yet at that time; although the pamphlet inexplicably remained uncorrected for years.
And further, there's nothing at all relevant or significant about any "dual citizenship" issue.
There is something relevant (he's running for president) about Donald Trump's asshole claims about how his private investigators had found "amazing" information concerning Obama in their travels to Hawaii... and then never said anything more about what that was.
Nobody much cares anymore about the phony "birther" issue anymore. But people do care about what sort of maniac Donald Trump might be.
@walter:
"It seems at times these studies are sought to lend credibility to "intuitions" without specifying to what productive end."
Google "disparate impact" for starters. Look at the effort made to eradicate the black-white achievement gap. Look at the attention paid to the disparity in criminal justice involvement. Look at the agitation among Asian-American parents in places like California were "holistic" admissions procedures allows universities essentially to hold Asian students to a higher standard and blacks to a lower. And then there's the feedback loop. Under qualified black students are admitted to law schools and then after graduation have disproportionately high fail rates on bar exams. This reality is then used as evidence for why law schools need more spending on diversity and minority student out reach programs, etc.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Even rational people had reason to doubt Obama's citizenship given his de facto British citizenship at birth due to his father's own.
Are you fucking kidding me? Every founding father was a British subject.
It's like you don't even try".
Of course they were British subjects, but they became American citizens by their residence in the new United States after 1776, and they were eligible for President by the "Grandfather Clause"--- "Or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this Constitution." They were naturalized by the Constitution itself, (just like "born Citizens" of the 14th Amendment), but like all others who were resident of the new United States in 1789 (the time of the ratification by the states) then they were eligible, since the natural born Citizens, those born in the United States to its citizens since 7/4/1776, were only 13. Martin Van Buren, the 8th POTUS, was the first natural born Citizen POTUS (1837-1841), born in New York in 1881 to parents who were citizens of the new United States.
If Obama's handlers really thought about it they could have made Obama eligible by making his birthday 8/4/59 instead of 8/4/61. He would have been a citizen of the state of Hawaii at the time the Constitution was ratified by Hawaii as a new state (8/21/59) , and he would have been eligible by the same clause.
Barry Goldwater was also eligible by the "Grandfather clause", as he was a young citizen of the territory of Arizona when it ratified the US Constitution and became a state.
So R & B has proven his ignorance once again.
Chuck said...
chickelit:
"No; no rational person would ever have doubted Obama's citizenship. I know of no rational person who did, or who made a rational case creating any serious doubt about Obama's citizenship.
What's worse about Trump, is that he actually led the way, with some of the LEAST credible claims against Obama's citizenship. Trump's supposed investigative team going to Hawaii; Trump's obsession with the birth certificate."
NONSENSE. Obama was born British, and therefore not natural born. He has never produced any "Birth Certificate" either. A pic on a website is proof of NOTHING. No court or person of legal stature has ever touched the supposed "raised seal" from the state of Hawaii on the BC.
Freder Frederson said...
"It is not even close, and Trump is winning 60%-30%-- 10% undecided.
Where did you get these figures. I bet it was from the monkeys flying out of your ass. Besides, according to you Trump is not even a natural born citizen, and is therefore a usurper and ineligible for the presidency."
Donald Trump was born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents, so he is an eligible natural born Citizen.
The Crooked Old Lady is in hiding as Trump is displaying himself as the patriot statesman, something that Obama can never pull off, because he hates this country and has no allegiance to it. He was born of a non citizen absentee father and shuttled from home to home to reside with other America haters all of his adolescent life, when he became a Muslim, and if he is not still a Muslim then he an apostate.
Obama is the perfect example of why a natural born Citizen is required.
R&B - would you say that Jim Crow is still in effect?
Someone above said that the Stimulus was not big enough. BS. It was way too big, and partially baking it into the baseline is part of why we are mired in the eighth year of the Bama Recession (though maybe we should be calling it the Obama, Pelosi, Reid Recession). Keynesian economics was empirically debunked at least 40 years ago. And even then, it was supposed to have been effective only in the sort of liquidity traps that we were supposedly in in the 1930s. But it probably helped turn the recession triggered by the 1929 Crash into the Great Depression. Because it just doesn't work. Or, more precisely, it hurts more than it helps. What do we have for a doubling of the national debt over the last decade? The longest recession since the last time Keynesian economics was tried. Theoretically, you should be able to cushion the bottom of a recession with very short term increased govt spending. But our govt can not do short term govt spending any more. There is no longer anything like "shovel ready jobs", and by the time that govt spending can kick in any more, it is way too late, taking much needed funds away from the businesses that would normally be trying to expand, coming out of a recession. Making things worse, of course, is that the Dem politicians at the top, starting with Speaker Pelosi, on down, viewed Keynesian Economics, as implemented in the "Stimulus", as their own piggy bank, that they were able to ladle out to their friends and families. Which essentially means that we didn't even come out of it with the much needed infrastructure improvements, but rather such waste as the Green Energy loan guarantees, Cars for Clunkers, etc, that only benefitted their friends and families, and not the rest of the country or economy.
Farmer,
Your comment regarding policies attempting to change the "gap" really doesn't follow from the line of mine you quoted. I am fully aware of previously alluded to failed policies in the sense that the role of government will create unintended consequences.
It's the seeming determination to single out and prove the heritable angle that concerns me. There's the concern over the motivation..as well as a question as to the utility of proving it.
@walter:
"It's the seeming determination to single out and prove the heritable angle that concerns me. There's the concern over the motivation..as well as a question as to the utility of proving it."
The heritability angle speaks directly to the intractability of the problem, from my point of view anyway. So long as the United States is a multiracial society, we will have racial problems and conflicts.
Well Mick you've got just 137 days left to impeach the British-citizen president. Then you might work more profitably on efforts to impeach the next Democrat that the Trumpkins were instrumental in electing.
J. Farmer said...So long as the United States is a multiracial society, we will have racial problems and conflicts.
--
Ah..and back to the ethnic cleansing as the only solution bit. Gotcha.
So..no practical utility then...
Ah. Just what I've come to expect from You. Juvenile bullying.
"How easily duped you are. The stimulus was not large enough. Exacting vengeance on the banks would have done zilch for the economy or the working class (actually worsening prospects for both), but hey - like any Republican you're an emotional guy who puts his emotional needs above logic.
So here's the other logic you missed: We're talking POST-crash. Not Clinton's policies. Mitch McConnell's congressional political strategy POST-Obama, POST-crash, WAS TO WORSEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY - hoping (correctly) that Obama would be blamed and that he'd get a congressional majority by 2010. THAT WAS HIS PRIORITY. Helping the American economy (and the American worker) would have been a threat to his political goal. Working against Obama was the point, regardless of what Obama did. It could have been right-wing prescriptions, left-wing prescriptions. Didn't matter. Worsening the economy was their explicit goal, you dunderhead - because depriving Obama of anything good that he (and they) could take credit for was PRIORITY NUMBER ONE."
As I said. All assertion with no proof. Your ramblings
about both politics and economics tend to more entertaining than informative. That you think you'r the smartest person in the room is what gives it extra spice.
Here's another fact you overlooked. Obama was given more than 700 billion in stimulus money and less than half of it was distributed. So it isn't like the resource weren't there.
Go ahead. Call me names. Your sobriety will always remain in question.
You can quit any time. Right?
My face?
My face is the kind of face people like you want to punch.
Chuck said...
"Well Mick you've got just 137 days left to impeach the British-citizen president. Then you might work more profitably on efforts to impeach the next Democrat that the Trumpkins were instrumental in electing."
Obviously I cannot "impeach" the putative POTUS. That must be done in the Senate.. What I did was legally contest his nomination and election, but he was protected by an equally treasonous judiciary and media. I am only one guy, but I can look at my kids and say I did everything I could when the Republic was attacked from within. Unfortunately not enough people did anything to protect the Republic.
@walter:
"So..no practical utility then..."
Only to reinforce my original point..."we're stuck." Little of what I say has "practical utility." Not exactly what I see blog commenting for.
Farmer..no utility..but you and the researchers seem very interested in it. Ya know..
Al Sharpton on Trump's Detroit stop
(Al feels Trump should have turned the appearance into an in depth policy forum.)
What does he say at 1:29? Quotining?
2:15..doesn't want anyone to instruct his intelligence.
3:50 Quotes the sage commentator James Brown..but Al clearly doesn't feel good about all this.
5:09..echoes my sentiment this was about white votes
7:00ish Trump invoking Lincoln is insulting..needs to ask why R's arent the party of Lincoln anymore...wants numbers on how many blacks he's employed.
At the risk of taking anything Sharpton says seriously, has Hil gone in depth into her promised policies at a "black" church?
@walter:
"Farmer..no utility..but you and the researchers seem very interested in it. Ya know.."
Well, "very interested" is a very relative term. For one, I work in the field and have personally administered standardized testing to a predominantly black clientele in the course of my professional life. You seem to want to draw some inference from my interest, but as I said, there's a huge cottage industry devoted to examining the black-white achievement gap. IQ seems to be a big part of that picture, regardless of what side of the answer you fall on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा