I was going to make a shorter clip, but this just takes off and keeps going. It's a fascinating emotional dynamic, because Loury gets very emotional about how the Trump haters need to calm down and move on and McWhorter stays super-calm justifying the emotional reaction resisting Trump as President.
Glenn Loury talked with me last January about the Trump phenomenon and was sympathetic enough toward Trump that I pressed him about whether he might be a closet Trump supporter. He said "I'm excited and amused by the possibility," but then made it very clear in the comments to my post: "I AM NOT A (CLOSETED) DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER!!"
ADDED: Okay, here's a very sharp clip, just a few seconds:
"And whether this man is a sexual predator? Come on. That's hyperbolic language that I think... was not even well-suited for the campaign. It lost Hillary Clinton the campaign. People decided they weren't going to be led around by the nose by a bunch of moralizing hypocrites, who sneer and throw labels around. They decided to vote for what they took to be their interests."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४७ टिप्पण्या:
Anybody who disagrees with the left is a "bigot." I quit there.
The consequences of being Black and supporting Donald Trump preclude people from doing it openly without serious consequences.
I've really enjoyed listening to Glenn Loury all year, especially his criticisms of Trump, which resonate so much harder because they're honest.
Loury on Democrats' embrace of Black Lives Matter:
"They were in the sway of a misguided, self-absorbed, morally superficial movement."
BOOM. Hope social media doesn't lynch him.
John McWhorter is a writer I've enjoyed very much. He is on a list of many "conservative" writers who hate Trump but whom I'm going to try to keep reading. (Like most of National Review.)
Its a very good DV. I disagreed with Glenn to a certain extent because I think Hillary didn't talk much of about the issues because her "issues" were losers.
Supporting Open borders and globalization, not to mention bad trade deals may win you plaudits from the NYT and WSJ Op-ed pages but it doesn't win you many votes. Hillary and a lot of Politicans have been playing a scam on the American people for years. You talk ignore these issues or you talk tough about bad trade deals and border security during election time ("Just build the dang fence") then once in office you support NAFTA, TTP, open borders and Amnesty.
You'll notice the MSM during the debates tried to minimize the immigration issue or frame it as a "Do you like Mexicans or Muslims?" issue. The same is true of the bad trade deals, it was either ignored or framed in a pro-free trade way.
And Hillary was remarkable for the small number of speeches and campaigning she did not only during the election but during the primaries. Does anyone remember the went months without an open press conference? Meanwhile, Trump was out there every single day.
And John M. is not a conservative and doesn't claim to be one. He writes for the New Republic not National Review (although its hard to tell the difference now).
Trump.
That's the only conversation going on in the world right now.
It's about political correctness. Trump showed how to beat the media, throw sand in its narrative gears, against politically correct horror reactions.
A guy like that can drain the swamp, albeit with the media against him all the way, as you see.
CJinPA said...
John McWhorter is a writer I've enjoyed very much. He is on a list of many "conservative" writers who hate Trump but whom I'm going to try to keep reading. (Like most of National Review.)
McWhorter is far more honest than anyone at NRO. But he never claims to be conservative.
NRO lost this election too. Bigly.
Both the commentators are politically correct, so I'm not sure they'll ever get to the right analysis, however much one or the other distinguish rhetoric vs actions.
The problem is narrative and its rejection.
The sanctimonious hypocrisy of liberals and progressives is expected as a matter of their principles. Their tales unwound because most people are not Pro-Choice and there is a presumption of innocence. So, People opposed the baby trials. The revelations in the 11th hour only further undermined their credibility.
I think Democrats and common interest Republicans are relieved that Republicans will be responsible for cleaning up Obama and Clinton's legacy in reconstituted class diversity schemes, immigration "reform" including the refugee crises, progressive debt devaluation and misalignments, "peace" mongering here there everywhere, resetting the cold war with nuclear powers, etc.
The lesson of the Chicago voter beating is not that actions are more serious than words, but that the leftist narrative is doing blacks no favors, in fact is by itself making things worse for blacks. It turns them into monsters.
The right direction is the other way.
The LibCong during the Clinton Administration that being a sexual predator didn't matter.
During the Obama campaign for President, the LibCong told us that experience in Government didn't matter.
Wish they'd make up their minds.
"McWhorter is far more honest than anyone at NRO. But he never claims to be conservative."
I guess that's why I used quotes around "conservative." It's been a while since I've read him. He was among the first black American writers I found who had a different take than the normal left-wing prominent black writers.
McWhorter concedes that "rape" and "racist" have become so devalued by overbroad use that they don't mean much, but defends use of "sexual predator" to mean . . . what?
If it is not limited to rapists, child molesters, people who drug others and then have sex with them (but see, rape), and serial quid pro quo sexual harassers, then what are the limits.
Bottom pinchers, voyeurs, kiss "stealers", oglers? Are they sexual predators? Is observing that when you're a celebrity, some women will let (permit) you to grab 'em by the pussy, is that an actual admission that the speaker has grabbed women by the pussy when they would not let him do so?
People's emotional responses can be valid, and maybe they are. I'm willing to listen and talk to them about it.
PHYSICAL responses however are different. It is not a valid response to a legitimate election to destroy other people's property. I think that's where the disconnect happens. Someone unhappy with the election hears someone else say, that the rioters need to move on, and that unhappy person feels THEIR emotions/feelings are being invalidated, when in reality, we're just trying to check destructive behavior.
I think that's why the media, especially, NEEDS to make a clear difference between the protesters and the rioters. No one cares too much about actual, peaceful protesters, and in fact, I at least, am sympathetic to many of their Trump-related concerns. If the media deliberately conflates them with rioters though, I can see where the communication gets muddied when different people talk about "the protesters."
Take the "sexual predator" part.
I was initially open to hearing legitimate takes that Trump had behaved inappropriately/illegally. I mean, I knew he has a playboy persona and a wandering eye when he was younger. This was not impossible to believe behavior, like if you accused Romney or Obama of something similar.
So, I was open to listening. I got, instead, a variety of accusations -- some more believable than others -- all while the Internet screamed about a rape case of a 13-year-old girl that amounted to nothing. None of the accusations made it very far, and it became, at best, he-said/she-said.
I could be persuaded that Trump is bad here, but coming from the Clinton campaign, I never got the sense that they CARED that Trump did something wrong, so much about PROVING he did something wrong. In the hands of a different Democrat, I think the attack would have been lethal.
As it is, I'm still of the opinion maybe some of the accusations were not true, but I have no way to know for sure, and in part it is because instead of them getting a fair hearing, they were reduced to a Clintonian talking point. Which is unfair to the women if they are victims, and Trump if he is innocent.
I actually like McWhorter, but nobody is concerned about the emotional outburst. It's the whole "rioting" thing that is problematic.
And the woman they are rioting for doesn't care enough about the country to ask them to stop.
Although people need to temper emotion with some rationality. These people are insane.
The rioters are losers, and nothing more.
There are a lot of closet Trump supporters. Many can lose their livelihood for coming out of that closet.
Question: Has anyone actually seen Hillary since the day after the election? Supposedly there was that walk in the woods, but nothing since then, right?
Is she still alive? Or did some of the many creditors she sold herself to on the assumption she could pay with government favors and power call the bill due now?
--Vance
Matthew Sablan said...maybe some of the accusations were not true, but I have no way to know for sure, and in part it is because instead of them getting a fair hearing, they were reduced to a Clintonian talking point.
--
A lot of media as well. So..having lost out on the election, do they no longer care? Or do they intend to revisit this?
Of course, they are likely more afraid of Pence..so...
Don't watch the Media or read their publications. Put them out of business. If they try to interview you say "Fuck You!" Carry a ball-pein hammer, like I do. Well, maybe not the last one.
I could be persuaded that Trump is bad here, but coming from the Clinton campaign, I never got the sense that they CARED that Trump did something wrong, so much about PROVING he did something wrong. In the hands of a different Democrat, I think the attack would have been lethal.
Number one, it needed to come from somebody who wasn't the prime enabler of another sexual predator.
I think they saw it in their heads as a way to give 'prudish Republicans' another case of the vapors more than actual proof of a sexual assault. I'm also not convinced that it couldn't have been a #NeverTrump operation (or maybe Republicans known to be anti-Trump like Ryan got advance warning) given how all of them had their 'Trump must go' speeches queued up. The timing was very off as well. Early voting was starting up but Trump still had over a month and two debates to respond or change the subject. It was a good time for GOPers wanting to distance themselves from Trump before their final campaign pushes.
I think Hillary's camp was actually hoping to that somebody would leak his tax returns late. I kept waiting for another revelation after Comey's surprise. That would have been devastating but given the scrutiny the IRS is under it seems nobody wanted to fall on their sword for her.
It very hard when one of your closest friends for decades posts an anti-Trump reshare that if you say 'move on' that it is white privilege and racism. I was actually in tears, because I could have made the argument "Hey you live in the suburbs with no minorities or poor people and you want to shame people as racists for accepting the results of an election publicly on social media? Look where you chose to live! It's 97% white and only 5% of households are single parents! Plus a median family income of $90,000" "Would you want anyone to assume you're a racist and hate the poor? No! Of course not, so why make that assumption about those who didn't vote for Hillary or willing to give Trump a chance as privileged or racist?"
It was screaming in my head. Just screaming in my head. What a terrible thing to say if I did, even though factually true. I don't blame her I get the Democratic solicitations, I can see how she can view it that way if that is all she reads. It just not the time and place to respond at times. Even though I am doing it here. Argh... so painful. Be patient. Be calm.
I even have New Hampshire friends all upset that there were write ins for Bernie Sanders, those individuals were worst than those who voted for Trump, because they really should have voted for Hillary Clinton.
Prayers for all. This is too much crazy.
Wait a second please: if Trump was a Democrat every damned Trump supporter who excused his sexual behavior would have been condemning him for it AND linking him to Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton et cetera.
Yes, the hypocrisy by the left is overwhelming but let's not kid ourselves about these Trump sycophants.
And any Trump supporter who wants to take issue with me on this is kidding himself.
"Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse." - Billy Connelly
"Question: Has anyone actually seen Hillary since the day after the election? Supposedly there was that walk in the woods, but nothing since then, right? Is she still alive? Or did some of the many creditors she sold herself to on the assumption she could pay with government favors and power call the bill due now?"
I imagine she's busy talking to Trump electors all day.
December 19 is coming, after all.
campy,
You think?
I doubt it. Her advisers were terrible. Other than her daughter I don't know who she would trust. Her campaign blew it. I think the Clintons are a political cancer, but Hillary is a human being. I hope she is getting the care and rest I would need after losing in such a manner.
Hillary is a human being.
A human being who sees herself as the last hope for stopping HITLER!!
Steve M. Galbraith said...Wait a second please: if Trump was a Democrat.
--
This stuff would likely have never surfaced or been generated.
but Hillary is a human being.
Technically, yes.
Glen defended Jim Webb for saying all lives matter, and said it is not racist to
Defend your white race. That said it all. Loury is now a part of the Scots-irish race a/k/a American. See how easy that was.
(sound of bagpipes)
Christophe B: They did leak Trump's tax returns. He took a $900 million write-off. That's the worst they could make out of it. There wasn't anything else useful that they could leak.
It'll play out as it did with Reagan. Lots of whiny detractors at the beginning within his own party, but by the time the first term is over you won't be able to find any Republican who will admit to ever being anything other than a full-throated enthusiastic supporter.
"...most people are not Pro-Choice...."
Actually, a majority of Americans do support the legality of abortion, some under all circumstances, others under certain circumstances.
Glenn Loury amped it up to "11".
So "sexual predator" is joining the list of words, along with "sexual assault" and "rape", that mean whatever you want them to mean?
When I tried to listen to Glenn Loury's Trump-like stream of consciousness dialogue, I got as far as ". . . climate change threatens the globe. He wants to keep a few jobs for a few coal miners in Eastern Kentucky at the expense of us all down in 100 or 150 years . . ." and I decided that our learned Brown University academic couldn't get beyond his own limited worldview in order to truly investigate the non-science of warmers. I am so sorry for his students.
There is little wonder as to why it is difficult to determine whether Loury is for or against Trump's imaginings of the world.
"So "sexual predator" is joining the list of words, along with "sexual assault" and "rape", that mean whatever you want them to mean?"
Yeah, I like John McW. so I was shocked by that too. I don't think expanding the definition of words to mean almost anything is a good idea. Its why we end up with clowns like Whoppi goldberg talking about "Rape Rape".
I've been peeking into the discusions over at TalkLeft. Can't wait till December 19, when the election will finally be over (maybe) for those hypocritical loons.
I'm a big fan of both those guys.
Hyperbole. As in, "the goose hyperboled the gander."
If the Dems keep up the race wars, they will eventually cause 75% of white people to vote for Republicans, negating the 90% minority vote for Dems.
Loury implies a profound point: morals are rooted in good and evil, while interests are not. Politics were formerly rooted in interests, but when politics became a substitute for religion those who disagree with us became sinners.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा